{"meta":{"page":1,"per_page":50,"max_per_page":100,"total":384,"total_is_capped":false,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":384,"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":"7dc7b5565411","filters":{"venue":"Supreme Court law review"}},"results":[{"id":"W1906128875","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1227","title":"Canadian Federalism and the Principle of Subsidiarity: Should We Open Pandora's Box?","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":24,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Subsidiarity; Federalism; Supreme court; Political science; Law; Cooperative federalism; Law and economics; Government (linguistics); Sociology; European union; Economics; Politics; Philosophy","authors":[{"name":"Eugénie Brouillet","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.144546900590988,"gpt":0.3639773841618273,"spread":0.2194304835708393,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002842345,0.0003162834,0.0005645701,0.001700602,0.01412388,0.007259887,0.001779636,0.003660398,0.004912612],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008099003,0.000252629,0.0005326411,0.002728336,0.01943769,0.004487066,0.002621137,0.005610134,0.0003084586],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07604735,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1273105,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9754574,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9840453,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9954836,0.000651358,0.00008154941,0.0004578223,0.001856182,0.001469596],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9970769,0.0009501781,0.0001958129,0.0001756786,0.001156981,0.0004445337],"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":[0.000005402627,0.000002794887,0.0003575238,0.00002211698,0.0000041831,0.00003434383,0.0009384067,0.00007306469,0.00002764372,0.9772887,0.01405336,0.007192452],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003622581,0.00001715197,0.007064919,0.0003481386,0.00003940387,0.0001139532,0.002796334,0.0005704881,0.0001621286,0.4011911,0.5875854,0.00007477012],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.02648033,0.04895072,0.006844102,0.4728091,0.001829245,0.00004961209,0.0003533473,0.00008888992,0.4425946],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8437604,0.02947068,0.005821326,0.06353273,0.001248362,0.00006540295,0.0001945042,0.00006633439,0.05584033],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07604735,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5517647,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1491901897","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1107","title":"So What is the Real Legacy of Oakes?: Two Decades of Proportionality Analysis under the Canadian Charter’s Section 1","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":23,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Deference; Supreme court; Adjudication; Law; Political science; Proportionality (law); Context (archaeology); Sociology; History","authors":[{"name":"Sujit Choudhry","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0420602414364565,"gpt":0.3336171573435262,"spread":0.2915569159070697,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01283388,0.0005327386,0.0006306171,0.002749496,0.0248766,0.01777778,0.002517891,0.005838837,0.002996868],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02669904,0.0005218588,0.0006565458,0.003645923,0.03347363,0.01094107,0.003679,0.01653747,0.0003310696],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08460455,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1276406,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9510105,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9660421,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9828765,0.001831252,0.0002652218,0.002088289,0.00944181,0.003496898],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9859628,0.004373627,0.0006416721,0.0007600981,0.00656166,0.001700109],"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":[0.00003743833,0.00002073876,0.002581479,0.00008325858,0.00001995382,0.0004737297,0.02145891,0.0002329131,0.0002200838,0.7905524,0.1379474,0.04637163],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002186287,0.00002342851,0.009985586,0.0007541146,0.00004545285,0.0003737193,0.02842797,0.0006791901,0.0008157583,0.1197457,0.8389131,0.0002140211],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.06299466,0.03296119,0.003806592,0.6524625,0.005208001,0.00006068732,0.0006082024,0.0001303785,0.2417678],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6899093,0.02157635,0.00370229,0.1829483,0.002180448,0.00004732158,0.0004133893,0.0002145296,0.09900804],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08460455,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6138518,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1561852027","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1206","title":"Facilitating Intergovernmental Dialogue: Judicial Review of the Division of Powers in the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"European and International Law Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":22,"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; Law; Jurisdiction; Separation of powers; Politics; Political science; Original jurisdiction; Order (exchange); Power (physics); Division (mathematics); Supreme Court Decisions; Government (linguistics); Economics","authors":[{"name":"Wade K. Wright","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02225469304308671,"gpt":0.2931431870909805,"spread":0.2708884940478938,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04428933,0.0004066859,0.0008723817,0.003693839,0.03009509,0.02444136,0.004547035,0.01114545,0.002637075],"category_scores_gemma":[0.09237748,0.0008924557,0.0006593004,0.004210341,0.01954883,0.006355787,0.008131983,0.01391787,0.0003798293],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1036075,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3120036,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9085119,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.955025,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9431854,0.01880122,0.001569585,0.003369612,0.02061128,0.01246283],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9273206,0.0449278,0.002723144,0.002121605,0.01876575,0.00414115],"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":[0.00003349071,0.00003649051,0.00236098,0.0001583216,0.00005457506,0.001076191,0.021448,0.001685523,0.0006111765,0.8677368,0.07194695,0.03285144],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001390158,0.00004472035,0.009528326,0.0009177933,0.0001433447,0.0002157271,0.01465173,0.003803538,0.001378687,0.2158506,0.7529872,0.000339288],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.06575976,0.02467231,0.02016701,0.3292901,0.002270332,0.0004347064,0.0002345101,0.0002155987,0.5569557],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9199862,0.005535668,0.007122908,0.04075057,0.0007439053,0.0001555365,0.00006892184,0.00006653259,0.02556977],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1036075,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7517285,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2573745411","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1307","title":"Aboriginal Title and Private Property","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":21,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria; Banff Centre; Nexen (Canada)","funders":"","keywords":"Declaration; Supreme court; Indigenous; Law; Political science; Constitution; Private property; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"John Borrows","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04250402339728181,"gpt":0.353776483323768,"spread":0.3112724599264862,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001828849,0.0001209367,0.0002296985,0.001111433,0.006011671,0.005509319,0.0009467514,0.002155657,0.008004141],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004323097,0.0001980439,0.0002687651,0.00102796,0.01654168,0.002762074,0.003767235,0.0028781,0.0003762593],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0135948,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01751192,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4431329,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5610111,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9969425,0.0005560403,0.00007983025,0.0003422265,0.001040387,0.001038969],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9969963,0.001371888,0.0004440733,0.0002373087,0.0006235607,0.0003269099],"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":[0.000005155928,0.000006565021,0.001906471,0.00002739501,0.000004432974,0.0002301234,0.005559618,0.0000723448,0.000115986,0.98784,0.001101103,0.003130819],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003856905,0.00008099395,0.0415284,0.0008821192,0.00007615218,0.0009266827,0.02159411,0.0006042609,0.0009927292,0.3830556,0.5501361,0.00008420672],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1238267,0.008396802,0.00247519,0.01571798,0.000210675,0.00003776356,0.0001112564,0.00001651651,0.8492072],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9506453,0.002439138,0.0004303262,0.002429905,0.0001136533,0.00001982069,0.00003287259,0.00001000439,0.04387906],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5568671,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8811071,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1878148134","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1129","title":"Aboriginal Over-representation and R. v. Gladue: Where We Were, Where We Are and Where We Might Be Going","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":21,"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":"Charter; Representation (politics); Supreme court; Political science; Law; History; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Jonathan Rudin","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05892869499764502,"gpt":0.3632767423738641,"spread":0.3043480473762191,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007904348,0.0001584879,0.0005152011,0.001535405,0.005770923,0.004093152,0.001193357,0.003874513,0.002426275],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02376907,0.0002210959,0.000453614,0.001933133,0.006533063,0.001931918,0.002269794,0.005437754,0.0002407904],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009819085,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02547473,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5087226,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7316551,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9931322,0.002489411,0.0002227071,0.0004600761,0.002274394,0.001421257],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9906514,0.004698761,0.001760707,0.0002298264,0.00177391,0.0008854787],"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":[0.0002513155,0.00008805239,0.06525958,0.002485165,0.0002394371,0.005202497,0.07569709,0.0003302512,0.0005609522,0.5520431,0.1281846,0.169658],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007443738,0.0003111509,0.1732353,0.01144207,0.0004854033,0.004144031,0.088884,0.0002250045,0.001221261,0.05587803,0.6638954,0.0002039185],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.2093785,0.2794949,0.0006646357,0.3107805,0.001793646,0.00004837816,0.0002465846,0.00001828424,0.1975747],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8319845,0.08792891,0.0004984176,0.05744597,0.0007388557,0.00002645898,0.00009374264,0.0000143508,0.02126882],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4912774,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9883413,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1571323056","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1259","title":"(Ab)Originalism and Canada’s Constitution","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":19,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Originalism; Constitution; Treaty; Interpretation (philosophy); Constitutional interpretation; Law; Political science; Constitutional law; Relation (database); Law of the land; Sociology; Philosophy; Linguistics","authors":[{"name":"John Borrows","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04329375384612381,"gpt":0.3276469139933314,"spread":0.2843531601472076,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00407821,0.0002078978,0.0003481833,0.001609241,0.01527079,0.009173462,0.001430341,0.003375549,0.006345876],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00841367,0.0002398249,0.0003787787,0.002829478,0.02409828,0.001842481,0.002282762,0.004629767,0.0003285833],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06486953,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1095252,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9604872,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9718935,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9927382,0.0008292339,0.0001577281,0.0008831953,0.003162334,0.002229197],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9948642,0.001467771,0.0002907977,0.0004713263,0.002447166,0.0004587604],"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":[0.000003904277,0.000002128337,0.000237645,0.00001343176,0.000002001286,0.0000357203,0.00145843,0.00007319314,0.00003567312,0.9889292,0.006840988,0.002367681],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000526292,0.00001723437,0.008230446,0.0003658762,0.00004595613,0.0001861277,0.003481668,0.0006509015,0.000352217,0.2891721,0.6973635,0.0000814013],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03479584,0.004249295,0.002955452,0.05262075,0.0004278828,0.00006357954,0.0005807964,0.00006222381,0.9042442],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9096084,0.001988022,0.002530827,0.01334783,0.0001852671,0.0000596233,0.0002247706,0.00005039999,0.07200485],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06486953,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4706636,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1545588899","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1183","title":"The Constitutional Status of the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":19,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitution; Supreme court; Law; Statute; Parliamentary sovereignty; Political science; Parliament; Sovereign immunity; Separation of powers; Politics","authors":[{"name":"Warren J. Newman","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03048684956872575,"gpt":0.2914957824644766,"spread":0.2610089328957508,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003708038,0.0002984244,0.0005063182,0.002718059,0.01982242,0.01520137,0.001867057,0.003615596,0.01190581],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01498222,0.0005018758,0.0003733996,0.004264993,0.01335919,0.003114663,0.002494485,0.006480773,0.0007942553],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09456389,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1138581,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9475785,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.968084,"domain_scores_codex":[0.990571,0.0008968837,0.0002427874,0.001331677,0.003747654,0.003209979],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9925002,0.001780595,0.0003742457,0.0003567034,0.003765083,0.001223152],"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":[0.000008026094,0.000002922831,0.0005500224,0.00001437209,0.000005826364,0.00004896276,0.0008270562,0.0000623669,0.00007038376,0.981233,0.0133302,0.003846875],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005701346,0.00002073012,0.01142977,0.0006165266,0.00009198755,0.0000799891,0.002667312,0.0009042045,0.0004400034,0.2203199,0.7632316,0.0001408431],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03416292,0.008593539,0.001451,0.04297261,0.0007832379,0.00006887411,0.001049076,0.00007157302,0.9108472],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9030325,0.004888509,0.001459235,0.01245111,0.0005282027,0.00007156747,0.0005729584,0.00004766635,0.0769482],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09456389,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6861123,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1751803832","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1172","title":"A More Lasting Comfort?: The Politics of Minimum Sentences, the Rule of Law and R. v. Ferguson","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":18,"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; Punishment (psychology); Supreme court; Economic Justice; Political science; Criminal justice; Psychology; Social psychology","authors":[{"name":"Benjamin L. Berger","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05607256762659776,"gpt":0.3494054192767731,"spread":0.2933328516501753,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01073696,0.0002449917,0.0006418268,0.001021474,0.009996005,0.009440368,0.001444232,0.01333151,0.002408801],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0201173,0.0003214515,0.000365874,0.0009526986,0.03081183,0.00782445,0.002072053,0.01586934,0.0003289413],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01721324,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01458302,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3021436,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4713688,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9911378,0.003973243,0.0001924323,0.0009946534,0.002344967,0.001356812],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9909835,0.006759315,0.0005619343,0.0002095992,0.0007760812,0.0007096135],"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":[0.0000226956,0.00001497986,0.0002974073,0.00003087276,0.00000533991,0.0001136845,0.002690777,0.00005862588,0.0001095342,0.927328,0.06240369,0.006924396],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006737616,0.00005998306,0.004383605,0.0006377304,0.00003735011,0.000192361,0.01014147,0.0003200821,0.000401576,0.5918494,0.3917917,0.0001174707],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","genre_scores_codex":[0.01099883,0.0315165,0.0008547722,0.8857708,0.001174944,0.000008805365,0.0000400308,0.000009660164,0.06962576],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6048983,0.01382119,0.001191416,0.3497669,0.003461761,0.00003699122,0.00003426692,0.00004509021,0.02674394],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","teacher_disagreement_score":0.3021436,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6007699,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1804800675","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1012","title":"“Grand Entrance Hall,” Back Door or Foundation Stone? the Role of Constitutional Principles in Construing and Applying the Constitution of Canada","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":18,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitution; Foundation (evidence); Law; Classics; Philosophy; Sociology; Art; Political science","authors":[{"name":"Warren J. Newman","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04364868291440584,"gpt":0.3029809875130487,"spread":0.2593323045986429,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002835194,0.0001957219,0.000285995,0.001294768,0.0109593,0.009394276,0.001536763,0.002488795,0.005001677],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007331157,0.0002166738,0.0001739749,0.001710101,0.01347172,0.003018264,0.001384551,0.003189897,0.0003897216],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05586296,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1227059,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9805287,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9928717,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9969112,0.0005815213,0.00005191861,0.0002269581,0.001106657,0.001121763],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981009,0.0004974813,0.00007399888,0.00008266752,0.0009041027,0.0003407818],"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":[0.000009153709,0.000005175749,0.0008549623,0.00004237131,0.000005286723,0.00007278197,0.002799881,0.0002119959,0.0001073952,0.9381315,0.04542981,0.01232959],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002087757,0.00001531946,0.01072038,0.0004054274,0.00003072315,0.00007271465,0.01264378,0.0006465281,0.0004600991,0.1473095,0.8276034,0.00007116324],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.05249935,0.03169793,0.005655045,0.2921236,0.001361149,0.00009874762,0.000787315,0.0001015443,0.6156752],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8639674,0.0112475,0.003194694,0.0226566,0.0002786416,0.00004346422,0.0001942896,0.00006493019,0.09835251],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05586296,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4053161,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1776435105","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1282","title":"Judging in Secular Times: Max Weber and the Rise of Proportionality","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":16,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Proportionality (law); Jurisprudence; Bureaucracy; Law; Metaphysics; Sociology; Churning; The Imaginary; Political science; Law and economics; Epistemology; Philosophy; Economics; Politics; Psychology","authors":[{"name":"David Schneiderman","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02450805635767055,"gpt":0.2971709197602406,"spread":0.2726628634025701,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007847007,0.0003116505,0.000340751,0.002121036,0.006302232,0.007271677,0.0005985787,0.002124259,0.002440175],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01324186,0.0002543654,0.000186916,0.00172449,0.03497025,0.009232964,0.002005148,0.003478511,0.0002601902],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007692916,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003540352,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01556938,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01781694,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9959149,0.002436887,0.0001113209,0.0004423418,0.0008031089,0.0002914226],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9937029,0.004701603,0.0003255257,0.00032292,0.0006173696,0.0003295753],"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":[0.000002759902,0.000001966144,0.00005591026,0.000005352241,6.775349e-7,0.00001379733,0.001630552,0.00004580047,0.00001098333,0.9937091,0.001938884,0.002584264],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000005146384,0.000004497034,0.0001773267,0.00004951035,0.000001595323,0.00001796121,0.000937384,0.0001982064,0.00005519861,0.9420286,0.05651684,0.000007671082],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.0479074,0.04662897,0.01397292,0.1673285,0.001885326,0.00003406695,0.00005265204,0.0000565367,0.7221336],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9631185,0.00629614,0.003032591,0.005300549,0.001308328,0.00002588477,0.00001287084,0.00003853684,0.02086669],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.01556938,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05581629,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1782902411","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1076","title":"State Neutrality and Freedom of Conscience and Religion","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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":"Law; Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Neutrality; Freedom of religion; Political science; Charter; Sociology; Pluralism (philosophy); Establishment Clause; Secular state; Separation of church and state; Politics; Human rights","authors":[{"name":"Bruce Ryder","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02759103481695941,"gpt":0.3230506339689826,"spread":0.2954595991520232,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00400314,0.0002021871,0.0003015835,0.0009388632,0.006403357,0.005831673,0.0006888955,0.00282673,0.004002317],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004982724,0.0001201139,0.000379598,0.0006538912,0.04688486,0.002903706,0.003425534,0.003456162,0.0002588501],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008532616,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010964,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1379389,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1348986,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9967086,0.001093703,0.00008960137,0.000325068,0.0007226897,0.001060367],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9970278,0.001235306,0.0002943493,0.0003493825,0.00046781,0.0006252785],"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":[0.000003770075,0.000003722367,0.0002525633,0.000005306882,0.000001825976,0.00002887263,0.00128984,0.00006914423,0.00003557784,0.9959221,0.0006924126,0.001694927],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002049946,0.00001542687,0.003049124,0.0001064676,0.000007171104,0.00006308468,0.002389157,0.0003378582,0.0001022575,0.9365547,0.05732642,0.00002787195],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.08220276,0.003898049,0.005197832,0.04876326,0.000320073,0.00003260963,0.00007701248,0.00003757174,0.8594708],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9844013,0.0005608903,0.0004679849,0.002888989,0.0001195973,0.00001779703,0.0000171144,0.000007663404,0.01151865],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1379389,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2742719,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1688268775","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1105","title":"The Long and Winding Road: Case Comment on Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage)","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"International Maritime Law Issues","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":15,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"University of Manitoba; Assembly of First Nations","funders":"","keywords":"Treaty; Law; Settlement (finance); Political science; Prima facie; First nation; Government (linguistics); Plaintiff; Indigenous","authors":[{"name":"Bryan P. Schwartz","is_ca":true},{"name":"Darla L. Rettie","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01889525557264394,"gpt":0.2259836741059277,"spread":0.2070884185332838,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004003199,0.0008601639,0.000808881,0.00176913,0.03628053,0.009782846,0.005493152,0.03889047,0.007303086],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009669157,0.001431491,0.001388143,0.003224416,0.008889486,0.002714962,0.002384607,0.02654654,0.001216569],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05527394,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1047631,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9814936,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9927004,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9940249,0.0003776227,0.0001552334,0.0006425209,0.002221516,0.002578232],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9952172,0.002065461,0.0001930926,0.0001139358,0.001557722,0.0008525212],"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":[0.00006782293,0.00003679368,0.003612919,0.0001156616,0.00004340999,0.00192813,0.0111076,0.0003184284,0.0006982211,0.09125069,0.8857007,0.00511958],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008427609,0.00003654443,0.01115888,0.0003681836,0.0001855635,0.0005673058,0.02158856,0.0004634213,0.00143844,0.00681346,0.9570157,0.0002796536],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","genre_scores_codex":[0.03568145,0.006017095,0.001042985,0.725336,0.003767654,0.0002341082,0.001526397,0.0001468209,0.2262475],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.1359311,0.003431007,0.0007993119,0.6825513,0.001083743,0.0001668046,0.0003375588,0.0001224017,0.1755767],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","teacher_disagreement_score":0.05527394,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4010423,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1898755370","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1086","title":"Aboriginal Rights and the Honour of the Crown","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":14,"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":"Law; Honour; Supreme court; Settlement (finance); Political science; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Brian Slattery","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01305975378385767,"gpt":0.3191276542854641,"spread":0.3060679005016065,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003450049,0.0002220644,0.000258508,0.0006323002,0.009477473,0.007134482,0.001037882,0.004241108,0.003415006],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003660998,0.0003151594,0.0003906836,0.0004514132,0.02845913,0.003088188,0.005086181,0.005377968,0.0003207875],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008848986,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0147101,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1530854,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2439587,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9958526,0.0009552814,0.0001500909,0.0005689512,0.001082,0.001391195],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985387,0.0005037127,0.0001250487,0.0002327764,0.0003515881,0.0002480306],"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":[0.000003082137,0.000003697398,0.0001678304,0.000008127781,0.000002114832,0.000122821,0.005747189,0.00005615565,0.0001739786,0.9909649,0.001140749,0.001609457],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002566119,0.00006492588,0.004124654,0.0002766835,0.00003593177,0.0004467276,0.01213277,0.000391353,0.0009181431,0.5921963,0.3893181,0.00006868627],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.09169839,0.004433569,0.003117702,0.02282091,0.0004149544,0.00004926412,0.00003463249,0.00002466855,0.8774059],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9290057,0.001204564,0.001651146,0.005592043,0.0001918134,0.00003689631,0.00002160784,0.000013285,0.06228308],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8469146,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3043887,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1565791337","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1205","title":"The Capital Markets Perspective on a National Securities Regulator","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Global Financial Regulation and Crises","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":13,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"Australian Government","keywords":"Constitutionality; Supreme court; Legislation; Law; Business; Political science; Economics; Accounting","authors":[{"name":"Poonam Puri","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02001761562505067,"gpt":0.2558779002140311,"spread":0.2358602845889805,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002620613,0.0003324464,0.0003685555,0.001092329,0.007265543,0.0080238,0.001037672,0.009391232,0.005240832],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004069608,0.0002575036,0.0005040296,0.001336418,0.01589289,0.003876894,0.00178927,0.008565993,0.0005438713],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02289563,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03172525,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3190178,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2596479,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9961759,0.0006115651,0.00008498198,0.0007842686,0.001283489,0.001059724],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998279,0.0007830675,0.0001246921,0.0001088537,0.0005184974,0.0001858578],"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":[0.000001105397,0.000001520187,0.00005820776,0.000002705757,6.807279e-7,0.00002011343,0.0001185835,0.00005139006,0.00002001262,0.9962958,0.002853904,0.0005761288],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002635891,0.00002232244,0.001314583,0.0001813783,0.00002262327,0.0001438757,0.0006515915,0.0009920478,0.0002849248,0.6371869,0.3591387,0.0000346796],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01592769,0.01036121,0.004784387,0.1402541,0.0006326476,0.00003436167,0.0001687894,0.00004063989,0.8277962],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.797711,0.009379098,0.002818915,0.08959441,0.001651625,0.0001091105,0.0001043925,0.0000391116,0.09859244],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3190178,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6343219,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385510024","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1428","title":"Equality before the Charter: Reflections on Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General)","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Jurisprudence; Law; Supreme court; Charter; Sociology; Political science; Equal Protection Clause","authors":[{"name":"Carissima Mathen","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08100061302339426,"gpt":0.3664157798178432,"spread":0.2854151667944489,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01094508,0.0008903111,0.0009392004,0.002949783,0.07578764,0.01988287,0.005936523,0.02700731,0.006494177],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01570878,0.001021942,0.001087837,0.004221367,0.04661839,0.006917983,0.0056892,0.02800323,0.0005242632],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.2384608,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2844448,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.995131,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9970668,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9732841,0.003557201,0.0004192604,0.002569986,0.01051914,0.009650256],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9939022,0.002589672,0.0002147592,0.000140824,0.001865806,0.001286598],"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":[0.00003035033,0.00003336181,0.0007574959,0.0001073075,0.00001574445,0.0008789377,0.02958943,0.0002798231,0.0002546413,0.7629331,0.1912969,0.01382286],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004122678,0.00003413739,0.004021621,0.0007203817,0.00004020868,0.0002508103,0.03106575,0.0002950775,0.0003766408,0.05296797,0.9099391,0.0002471124],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01965157,0.04125827,0.001112071,0.6767489,0.004244122,0.0001080963,0.0003027896,0.00006544054,0.2565088],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.3586535,0.01792521,0.001566319,0.4908396,0.001474061,0.0001110206,0.0001223451,0.0001752434,0.1291328],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2384608,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8832775,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1720456538","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1019","title":"The Rise of International Law in Canadian Constitutional Litigation: Fugue or Fusion?: Recent Developments and Challenges in Internalizing International Law","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"International Law and Aviation","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":10,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science; International law; Criminal law","authors":[{"name":"Louis Lebel","is_ca":false},{"name":"Gloria Chao","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08698436325994299,"gpt":0.3253423993917279,"spread":0.2383580361317849,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01134987,0.0004778124,0.000647298,0.006806333,0.02124487,0.03426367,0.002328747,0.007310709,0.009407132],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03001383,0.0004969107,0.0005866258,0.0110869,0.02884936,0.008788517,0.00523527,0.009647447,0.0005290885],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1658868,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2708434,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9866963,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9942541,"domain_scores_codex":[0.986331,0.001311539,0.0003602543,0.001128426,0.006559961,0.004308761],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9818652,0.004518319,0.0009984763,0.0005101099,0.009574145,0.002533616],"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":[0.00002418382,0.00002474789,0.003794976,0.0002221561,0.00002528253,0.0002340388,0.008949011,0.0004725267,0.0001565762,0.7919748,0.1224013,0.07172047],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002301274,0.00002455234,0.02687327,0.0009742429,0.00009449496,0.0002221383,0.02334218,0.0007988978,0.0004222678,0.08494593,0.8620901,0.0001889367],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02931747,0.09397914,0.0018941,0.4911887,0.002476655,0.0000486766,0.0003813761,0.000126064,0.3805878],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7657984,0.09795915,0.003011368,0.07390263,0.002518658,0.00004985721,0.0003938798,0.0001643609,0.0562017],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1658868,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9674531,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1604660447","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1226","title":"Equal Autonomy in Canadian Federalism: The Continuing Search for Balance in the Interpretation of the Division of Powers","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":10,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisdiction; Law; Federalism; Political science; Supreme court; Exclusive jurisdiction; Federal jurisdiction; Autonomy; Constitution; Jurisprudence; Writ; Separation of powers; Politics","authors":[{"name":"Bruce Ryder","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04632363708824638,"gpt":0.3309071456951639,"spread":0.2845835086069176,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010016,0.0003027667,0.0007722666,0.00258,0.01914809,0.01192317,0.002463385,0.005792069,0.004587444],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02139269,0.0004926882,0.0006349001,0.00387218,0.02475703,0.004579619,0.003152504,0.00986555,0.0002637221],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1505056,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1801249,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9779884,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9890497,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9874495,0.002271742,0.000302169,0.001263567,0.006429566,0.002283347],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.990021,0.004024892,0.0004090105,0.0005467957,0.004029929,0.0009683278],"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":[0.000007065231,0.000003161009,0.0003565181,0.00003129921,0.000006475937,0.00005243656,0.002905909,0.0001727949,0.00006035446,0.9735476,0.01379165,0.009064742],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005255645,0.0000165555,0.007756532,0.0004590015,0.00004738309,0.0001109901,0.004881386,0.001512011,0.0002898124,0.4849891,0.4997584,0.0001262443],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03780632,0.0323493,0.01120959,0.4811604,0.001642989,0.00006374533,0.0002658216,0.00008901152,0.4354128],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8847258,0.01420796,0.009500981,0.05201262,0.0007093956,0.00005866016,0.0001104786,0.00008148834,0.03859272],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8494944,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9852931,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2612725658","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1038","title":"“Reconciling Rights” the Supreme Court of Canada's Approach To Competing Charter Rights","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":8,"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; Charter; Political science; Law; Law and economics; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Frank Iacobucci","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03880812952687161,"gpt":0.2747366242445672,"spread":0.2359284947176956,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01344124,0.0008172406,0.001346377,0.005301294,0.02783435,0.02649218,0.006578382,0.01719538,0.005621971],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02257601,0.001162177,0.00139481,0.005999596,0.03057319,0.00631192,0.004495163,0.01625319,0.0003995135],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1197518,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2388244,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9609222,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9816561,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9746369,0.004876775,0.0005657379,0.002097687,0.01155837,0.006264532],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9909285,0.002964012,0.0002239297,0.0007105401,0.004164782,0.00100821],"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":[0.000003073007,0.000004541476,0.00007861831,0.000008411214,0.000006217314,0.00002120017,0.0007662009,0.0002736585,0.00002795272,0.9885353,0.008143152,0.002131528],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007218057,0.00001240707,0.001582861,0.0002345646,0.00008808228,0.00006515439,0.002516194,0.003092922,0.0004858721,0.7326275,0.2590896,0.0001326676],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.03585555,0.007243944,0.02800447,0.2298824,0.002060566,0.0003442567,0.0007607399,0.0001666926,0.6956814],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7922691,0.003293528,0.02848035,0.05394259,0.00109203,0.0002935151,0.000235364,0.0001570086,0.1202364],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1197518,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.868864,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1916264842","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1087","title":"Aboriginal Rights, Resource Development, and the Source of the Provincial Duty To Consult in Haida Nation and Taku River","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law","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":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Statutory law; Jurisdiction; Law; Political science; Duty; Supreme court; Resource (disambiguation); Unit (ring theory); Geography; Archaeology","authors":[{"name":"Kent McNeil","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01375234229766403,"gpt":0.2743574931849103,"spread":0.2606051508872462,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001880185,0.0001689019,0.0002654967,0.0007874104,0.0254906,0.01107132,0.001674241,0.00337358,0.005159461],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003925198,0.0004551163,0.0002396179,0.001325179,0.0171748,0.002571602,0.004948155,0.005041973,0.0002854643],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03645734,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06761608,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8806187,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9604868,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9968808,0.0004424114,0.00006861654,0.0002280623,0.0006738509,0.001706413],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9975382,0.0008205172,0.0002159848,0.0001445434,0.0005429894,0.0007378024],"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":[0.00003140959,0.00003649969,0.005957783,0.00005113678,0.000007517597,0.001811461,0.07689542,0.0001838946,0.000391054,0.8976086,0.006945865,0.01007935],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006728824,0.00008542669,0.07140326,0.0007594016,0.00009800489,0.001881796,0.278113,0.001571702,0.001300431,0.1734738,0.4710563,0.0001895979],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.3231339,0.001870413,0.0007937188,0.02147601,0.0001255272,0.00007313319,0.00007759644,0.00001639766,0.6524333],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9316258,0.0005938646,0.0004111203,0.001980519,0.00002591441,0.00004582665,0.00002739803,0.00001260174,0.06527682],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1193813,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2645178,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1574723685","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1211","title":"Courting Constitutional Danger: Constitutional Conventions and the Legacy of the Patriation Reference","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","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 Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Justiciability; Supreme court; Law; Political question; Political science; Politics; Veto; Constitutional law; Constitutional court; Convention; Constitutional economics; Constitution; Judicial review; Power (physics); Law and economics; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Adam M. Dodek","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08771034750402737,"gpt":0.3139274568977658,"spread":0.2262171093937384,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01322773,0.0002138268,0.0004754528,0.001855728,0.01160342,0.01408684,0.001596921,0.009111458,0.002273225],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02115159,0.0003370404,0.0003403208,0.001766133,0.05885556,0.01166091,0.005119548,0.01400635,0.0002119721],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01336331,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0137742,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.06671682,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0654736,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9878898,0.006676012,0.0003232595,0.001126607,0.00276947,0.001214812],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9881231,0.007800529,0.0009552336,0.001109771,0.001512555,0.0004988429],"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":[0.000002550533,0.000002687866,0.0001185935,0.000005696153,0.000001552834,0.00005948005,0.004524978,0.00006074964,0.00004324675,0.9916204,0.001184697,0.002375325],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002197291,0.00002373224,0.001048735,0.0001382123,0.000008450999,0.0001442215,0.005474634,0.0004297604,0.0002702174,0.8863837,0.1060119,0.00004453872],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1424266,0.0188333,0.01688333,0.2565636,0.001192379,0.00004922101,0.00007255597,0.00007468501,0.5639043],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9775252,0.001891199,0.001097748,0.007689402,0.0004765719,0.00002006921,0.00001706413,0.00002289625,0.0112598],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06671682,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.132657,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1609406408","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1135","title":"Voicing an Opinion: Authorship, Collaboration and the Judgments of Justice Bertha Wilson","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"Université Laval; University of Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Dissenting opinion; Supreme court; Economic Justice; Law; Portrait; Sociology; Political science; History","authors":[{"name":"Marie-Claire Belleau","is_ca":true},{"name":"Rebecca Johnson","is_ca":true},{"name":"Christina Vinters","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05517854406365819,"gpt":0.3505304650031502,"spread":0.295351920939492,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03001613,0.0003213354,0.0004546896,0.00327321,0.02845853,0.01900364,0.001756963,0.005172648,0.00585642],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1733319,0.000428371,0.0002320348,0.002862077,0.02845245,0.01062508,0.007277173,0.004471594,0.00083257],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01180493,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01119222,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07149673,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1112002,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9463806,0.03580005,0.001346884,0.003642272,0.009331586,0.003498517],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.7832991,0.1658451,0.01339965,0.005407661,0.01899572,0.01305279],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001231793,0.0000889322,0.01503155,0.0001075202,0.00003546166,0.001752757,0.5658993,0.0003509178,0.0006491869,0.2955056,0.06170768,0.05874781],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005802291,0.00009604068,0.0180066,0.0005934442,0.00003132911,0.0008415608,0.4280142,0.001335884,0.0009212733,0.2326827,0.3171781,0.0002409264],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.449621,0.007354206,0.006846544,0.1642126,0.00178117,0.0001053394,0.0001172537,0.00009231853,0.3698696],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9868761,0.0004753023,0.0007763003,0.0025463,0.0002671432,0.0000208061,0.00001231149,0.00003845089,0.008987219],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.07149673,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1587424,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2164840683","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1088","title":"Haida Nation and Taku River: A Commentary On Aboriginal Consultation and Reconciliation","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"Assembly of First Nations","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Obligation; Honour; Political science; Government (linguistics); Treaty; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"E. Ria Tzimas","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02247826241950664,"gpt":0.3336537329175343,"spread":0.3111754704980277,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01522827,0.000692315,0.001539644,0.001810587,0.06253534,0.01571508,0.008532572,0.05978751,0.00483262],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03034971,0.001330238,0.001755456,0.00385015,0.02065028,0.005294215,0.005168974,0.06179472,0.0007906522],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08094534,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1243814,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8535722,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9253973,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9785607,0.006245118,0.0007782106,0.001768184,0.0060901,0.006557701],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9824004,0.01252676,0.0004175768,0.0002293006,0.003045506,0.001380451],"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":[0.00004985964,0.0000276066,0.0004595382,0.0002311843,0.00003307905,0.001885155,0.0235002,0.0002437941,0.000204376,0.2812119,0.6854081,0.006745307],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006907984,0.00002769073,0.002174242,0.001206213,0.00009302237,0.0003513685,0.03345669,0.0003413863,0.0003185574,0.0247872,0.9370066,0.0001679285],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","genre_scores_codex":[0.0064338,0.02964113,0.0003509471,0.8884155,0.007943035,0.00005785915,0.0001033048,0.00003192672,0.06702259],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.08573715,0.008545962,0.0004502117,0.8584153,0.003425575,0.0001367444,0.00004199006,0.00006112654,0.04318592],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1464278,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5873023,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3091653381","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1377","title":"The 2018 Pan-Canadian Securities Regulation Reference: Dualist Federalism to the Rescue of Cooperative Federalism","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Policy and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Federalism; Jurisdiction; Commerce Clause; Supreme court; Political science; Normative; Law; Interpretation (philosophy); Law and economics; Politics; Economics","authors":[{"name":"Johanne Poirier","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05956805710657967,"gpt":0.3174764434066724,"spread":0.2579083863000927,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007140047,0.0007773638,0.0007622336,0.003397696,0.01717776,0.01180819,0.00363298,0.01627356,0.006629371],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02079687,0.0006559179,0.001156099,0.004473894,0.01020889,0.003336211,0.002559506,0.01490005,0.001054666],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1155749,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1687002,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9729353,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9841726,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9827442,0.001255169,0.0004185025,0.001640311,0.01118596,0.002755946],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9862592,0.002787244,0.0004240351,0.0005699541,0.009064761,0.0008948091],"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":[0.00001838226,0.00001050402,0.0003561074,0.00009079357,0.000008356948,0.0002001661,0.001608123,0.000171833,0.0002020466,0.4825167,0.5046234,0.01019364],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001561156,0.000007339382,0.001565595,0.0003042257,0.00002203162,0.00005903609,0.0006013655,0.0002276796,0.000261932,0.01875624,0.9781311,0.00004790299],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.006778115,0.03625427,0.003287964,0.525063,0.01622458,0.0001417205,0.001626642,0.0002351772,0.4103885],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2018486,0.02680209,0.008325807,0.4215777,0.005725679,0.0002373758,0.000935396,0.000296319,0.3342511],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.884425,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8385588,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1928956895","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1079","title":"Freedom of Expression and the Law of the Democratic Process","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Intellectual Property Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Democracy; Law; Jurisprudence; Parliament; Campaign finance; Context (archaeology); Political science; Politics; Judicial review; Law and economics; Constitutional law; Election law; Sociology; History","authors":[{"name":"Colin Feasby","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03038866156627423,"gpt":0.3035396905024319,"spread":0.2731510289361577,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01267742,0.0004352668,0.000623978,0.001841667,0.01191081,0.01509301,0.002040969,0.006786007,0.002725469],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01664247,0.0003971039,0.0007120628,0.001783852,0.0603277,0.004960557,0.005164981,0.007464129,0.0004230887],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02612673,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0361913,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2680779,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2075995,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9844488,0.005047498,0.0004520037,0.001318182,0.004779771,0.003953706],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9921126,0.005297151,0.0006710802,0.0005289826,0.001029766,0.0003604238],"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":[0.000001175835,0.000001269623,0.0000273948,0.000004360791,7.67363e-7,0.00001617007,0.0004323753,0.00004865363,0.0000107817,0.9977711,0.0007590927,0.000926817],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001442435,0.00001038742,0.0004209187,0.000129755,0.00001063836,0.00004249661,0.0008808134,0.0003231143,0.0001669974,0.8994319,0.09854917,0.00001934843],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.01990794,0.01764762,0.02120781,0.09820336,0.000607885,0.0001190518,0.00008728955,0.00006350874,0.8421555],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9141704,0.0052398,0.003506216,0.01557279,0.0007016246,0.000197864,0.0000482963,0.00003675745,0.06052623],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.2680779,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.533035,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2954057586","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1359","title":"Land Acknowledgment, Scripting and Julius Caesar","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"York University; Canadian Mennonite University; University of Manitoba; Harvard University","keywords":"Honour; Oppression; Constitution; Presentation (obstetrics); Supreme court; Political science; Law; Sociology; Politics","authors":[{"name":"Jeffery Hewitt","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03932214584031214,"gpt":0.3122232192129267,"spread":0.2729010733726146,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003666636,0.0002201955,0.0002045139,0.0006107227,0.007652603,0.006388335,0.0008131647,0.001611889,0.002553997],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007504846,0.0002132063,0.0001180927,0.0007770468,0.02943473,0.003592165,0.00226768,0.004392172,0.0006883374],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006876323,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007617258,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04158828,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07704551,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9961728,0.002305301,0.00008687645,0.0003339149,0.0007404674,0.000360645],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9966661,0.002145207,0.0002241498,0.0002747263,0.0004440744,0.0002455538],"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":[0.00000512511,0.000003915179,0.0001494552,0.00002340411,0.000001251161,0.00007884039,0.01101432,0.00005982625,0.00006210388,0.9487349,0.03251926,0.007347486],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000004992976,0.00000988186,0.0005645966,0.0002293754,0.000002786717,0.0001243777,0.01338568,0.000122967,0.0002808172,0.1295717,0.8556857,0.00001717155],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03356777,0.04716116,0.006551692,0.2070611,0.003546236,0.00003312121,0.00006365913,0.00009851099,0.7019168],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8301627,0.01357548,0.002385495,0.0271071,0.001334111,0.0000497023,0.00003843543,0.0001406627,0.1252063],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04158828,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08269238,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1899518710","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1209","title":"The Patriation and Quebec Veto References: The Supreme Court Wrestles with the Political Part of the Constitution","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitution; Law; Supreme court; Veto; Parliament; Political science; Convention; Constitutional court; Politics","authors":[{"name":"Peter H. Russell","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.07659455001087731,"gpt":0.2989832663319457,"spread":0.2223887163210684,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006272936,0.0002820921,0.0004583548,0.001857048,0.0189002,0.01106413,0.002271221,0.008747468,0.004006533],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0218736,0.0005006994,0.0004914564,0.002982316,0.01372476,0.002912552,0.002016794,0.01146907,0.0003405813],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05357597,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06397695,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9182385,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9624996,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9885424,0.002700522,0.0002349361,0.001373726,0.004946849,0.002201515],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.990804,0.004718198,0.0003749276,0.000563812,0.003126128,0.0004130515],"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":[0.000009776705,0.000005449304,0.000463708,0.00001673718,0.00000690123,0.0001226616,0.002620967,0.0001024328,0.0001010643,0.968438,0.02202533,0.006087012],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008904785,0.00005680168,0.01144148,0.0005149299,0.00006306224,0.0001822662,0.004729287,0.001202033,0.001040092,0.2122146,0.7683027,0.000163788],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.05688645,0.01537093,0.005050922,0.1479822,0.001424805,0.0001025163,0.0004083749,0.00006839328,0.7727054],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8361349,0.003339196,0.002218746,0.05007583,0.0004318398,0.0001149871,0.0001455158,0.00005588453,0.1074832],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.946424,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3887227,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2519228174","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1327","title":"Judging the Limits of Cooperative Federalism","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Adjudication; Constitution; Law; Charter; Interpretation (philosophy); Originalism; Constitutional law; Political science; Meaning (existential); Separation of powers; Treaty; Constitutional economics; Law and economics; Sociology; Epistemology; Philosophy; Linguistics","authors":[{"name":"Eric M. Adams","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.07962996588047687,"gpt":0.3566823282573796,"spread":0.2770523623769027,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01910235,0.0002777062,0.0007765353,0.003888709,0.01539777,0.01216003,0.002618734,0.004600564,0.004973875],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05496156,0.000356369,0.0004368994,0.002301924,0.04420516,0.009647775,0.005581828,0.005991423,0.0003649007],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03983052,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03711826,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5238113,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6273353,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9837323,0.005320443,0.0004708341,0.001844879,0.004963407,0.003668129],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9713093,0.01616857,0.001120088,0.002205446,0.006912507,0.002284038],"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":[0.000005866276,0.000001974218,0.0003524184,0.00001082165,0.000003002207,0.00001820628,0.001981852,0.0001136631,0.000026362,0.9939321,0.00171739,0.001836162],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002270554,0.00001291426,0.003045782,0.0002339212,0.00002702286,0.0000452322,0.008484097,0.0007831985,0.00017324,0.8827907,0.1043549,0.00002620142],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.07623178,0.005945892,0.006935927,0.06931259,0.0003258768,0.00004890001,0.0001189473,0.00005213219,0.841028],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9874405,0.00110307,0.001430588,0.003250155,0.0001513822,0.00004532647,0.0000330741,0.00002860008,0.006517367],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5238113,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9579862,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1899114343","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1305","title":"The Constitutional Dimensions of Aboriginal Title","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"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":"Supreme court; Subject (documents); Law; Political science; Constitutional law; Constitutional right; Property (philosophy); Property rights; Sociology; Philosophy; Library science; Computer science","authors":[{"name":"Brian Slattery","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06174705072543573,"gpt":0.382995987188844,"spread":0.3212489364634082,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004604997,0.0001607354,0.0003439244,0.001608008,0.007069276,0.007267775,0.001380026,0.002576816,0.004038676],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006967117,0.0003465345,0.0002973625,0.001786207,0.02928933,0.003692065,0.003445521,0.004561054,0.0002507293],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01331747,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01693787,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2206478,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3167735,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9950677,0.001672614,0.00021055,0.0006246658,0.001452108,0.0009723279],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9961016,0.002028931,0.0003463919,0.0003948607,0.0007770733,0.0003511407],"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":[0.000002063911,0.000001599802,0.0002806456,0.00001825134,0.000001859385,0.00003119379,0.002617398,0.00002984377,0.00005037464,0.994875,0.000482923,0.001608875],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002859818,0.00003968329,0.01110065,0.0006157915,0.00004655118,0.0002871812,0.008184993,0.000282585,0.0004349781,0.7137853,0.2651497,0.00004410405],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.06856515,0.01762048,0.006583165,0.02986541,0.0003597575,0.00004680088,0.0001675488,0.00002678468,0.8767648],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9685808,0.003708628,0.001732201,0.003016331,0.0002127569,0.00005182604,0.00005099381,0.00001290524,0.02263348],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7793522,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4387269,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1605254849","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1249","title":"Parliamentary Engagement with the Charter: Rethinking the Idea of Legislative Rights Review","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Legislature; Charter; Political science; Legislation; Law; Bill of rights; Law and economics; Public administration; Human rights; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Janet L. Hiebert","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0621211467014886,"gpt":0.3215700139296023,"spread":0.2594488672281137,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.08304399,0.0004602952,0.001262622,0.006220803,0.02102087,0.03327683,0.004395169,0.01604919,0.003012343],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1262146,0.00085851,0.0008769801,0.006304239,0.07509599,0.01506629,0.006792866,0.01899926,0.000633949],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1011071,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1773172,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7373405,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7681808,"domain_scores_codex":[0.8973071,0.05313024,0.003517245,0.00772117,0.03058457,0.007739812],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8434159,0.09556971,0.004691205,0.008621505,0.0426532,0.005048471],"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":[0.000008993539,0.00000584373,0.0002486543,0.00004289829,0.000006609927,0.00005418163,0.004156568,0.0001676572,0.0000839412,0.9745472,0.01095267,0.00972491],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000494581,0.00003687076,0.002243992,0.0007911454,0.00007057242,0.0001111587,0.003697013,0.001396849,0.0007760393,0.3025542,0.6881131,0.0001596245],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01705323,0.02265088,0.04593237,0.6073757,0.004737333,0.0002864535,0.0002207796,0.0002424389,0.3015009],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7945076,0.01186573,0.02899997,0.09630578,0.00400133,0.0003061385,0.0001216186,0.0003446618,0.06354706],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2626595,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7335868,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1648716606","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1098","title":"The Federal Principle and the 2005 Balance of Powers in Canada","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"Université Laval","funders":"","keywords":"Balance (ability); Political science; Psychology; Neuroscience","authors":[{"name":"Eugénie Brouillet","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01562008903553386,"gpt":0.2852168158331491,"spread":0.2695967267976152,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002789805,0.0003425904,0.0004651993,0.003090606,0.01379324,0.009888568,0.001750065,0.004398379,0.007013455],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007872512,0.0005224369,0.0004280511,0.004969976,0.00749273,0.002104534,0.001605761,0.003804169,0.0004261537],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.138109,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1863714,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9910578,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9944983,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9937481,0.0005286903,0.0001507774,0.00050563,0.002853099,0.002213774],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9973397,0.0005694585,0.0001534637,0.0000859103,0.001525391,0.0003261271],"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":[0.00001596084,0.000006904934,0.0008825791,0.0000637987,0.00001170429,0.0001011694,0.001359752,0.0004581492,0.00006278988,0.9540536,0.03317101,0.009812576],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000603665,0.00002230774,0.01642754,0.0006269884,0.00008755007,0.0001282899,0.0029026,0.001016764,0.0003504977,0.152264,0.8260226,0.00009045576],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.04313375,0.06053055,0.001999633,0.06751987,0.00100226,0.0001202279,0.001124456,0.00003880187,0.8245305],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8112034,0.02505242,0.002195336,0.02127622,0.0003365308,0.0001088636,0.0004379982,0.00003898474,0.1393503],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.138109,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996713,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1546324725","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1077","title":"Religious Commitment and Identity: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"University of Windsor","funders":"","keywords":"Conscience; Charter; Law; Freedom of religion; Plaintiff; Identity (music); Sociology; Political science; Construct (python library); Human rights; Philosophy","authors":[{"name":"Richard Moon","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02568574303801228,"gpt":0.3362930668798159,"spread":0.3106073238418036,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004326927,0.0002889302,0.0005144459,0.0007746145,0.02294237,0.006190892,0.002515741,0.01149369,0.00898213],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006476719,0.0004773349,0.000585584,0.000634574,0.007742418,0.002471981,0.005870304,0.01491216,0.0005903632],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01603829,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01621114,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4653637,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6821637,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9955572,0.000615282,0.00008804557,0.0004522877,0.001349654,0.001937531],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9973317,0.0009197154,0.0002037473,0.000155548,0.0003806707,0.001008488],"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":[0.0001728455,0.0004003779,0.01642844,0.0001332423,0.00005197956,0.01200084,0.04348205,0.0003529563,0.001901995,0.8033191,0.09657585,0.0251803],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000449296,0.0005517604,0.06736954,0.001125082,0.0001365625,0.003110165,0.06219024,0.002068786,0.002980363,0.06317366,0.7965487,0.0002958619],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.3709385,0.003073604,0.0005927643,0.1250791,0.000982541,0.0001740317,0.0001217466,0.00003878831,0.4989989],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8202499,0.0008941342,0.0002647995,0.06174553,0.0003892569,0.0001165928,0.00005174079,0.00001463818,0.1162734],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4653637,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9253099,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123265210","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1128","title":"The Charter of Whiteness: Twenty-Five Years of Maintaining Racial Injustice in the Canadian Criminal Justice System","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Injustice; Charter; Political science; Criminal justice; Economic Justice; Law; Racial profiling; Legislation; Government (linguistics); Critical race theory; Mass incarceration; Race (biology); Criminology; Racism; Sociology; Gender studies","authors":[{"name":"David M Tanovich","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05880741501285712,"gpt":0.3317094898789089,"spread":0.2729020748660517,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01765099,0.0006124568,0.000555665,0.002904573,0.07002123,0.01614129,0.003218599,0.003950524,0.002543021],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02022239,0.0005665148,0.0005880632,0.002704822,0.03884767,0.005291183,0.007276119,0.008223196,0.0001818694],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1486739,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2755119,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.983938,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9924673,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9843918,0.0027166,0.0003143685,0.0009646114,0.005727214,0.005885352],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98047,0.002503027,0.001119396,0.0007140274,0.008301918,0.006891651],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0002044529,0.0001508901,0.03062069,0.0003202974,0.0001012886,0.0009826623,0.4099889,0.001276209,0.001909053,0.2395584,0.133148,0.1817391],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002430902,0.0002098962,0.0683239,0.0007067898,0.0001278098,0.0002327313,0.229561,0.0005648716,0.001229625,0.01555417,0.6830429,0.0004218992],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.4034827,0.03532289,0.003125336,0.4280134,0.004720178,0.0001281473,0.0002840834,0.0001560287,0.1247672],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9456916,0.006434756,0.001156259,0.02123403,0.0004061231,0.00003627376,0.00007819791,0.00006866935,0.02489418],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1486739,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9874176,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1754226533","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1024","title":"Constitutional Casualties of September 11: Limiting the Legacy of the Anti-Terrorism Act","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Terrorism; Statute; Conviction; Law; Political science; Presumption; Presumption of innocence","authors":[{"name":"David M. Paciocco","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.098687175941766,"gpt":0.3428456381365486,"spread":0.2441584621947826,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01086467,0.0008669969,0.0006861567,0.001596213,0.008408118,0.01682423,0.004545913,0.01970194,0.008458279],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02251455,0.001240314,0.00117708,0.001041013,0.01224214,0.003513256,0.005049236,0.01706357,0.00223538],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01945763,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02963739,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3807073,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5449637,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9850191,0.001795186,0.0008282182,0.002421744,0.006523061,0.003412657],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9871536,0.005547398,0.001036446,0.00170591,0.002520117,0.002036635],"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":[0.0001237201,0.000163228,0.004401128,0.0001346876,0.00004243897,0.001437723,0.003880466,0.0006709369,0.00280864,0.8239589,0.1418878,0.02049042],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002158345,0.000334529,0.02195279,0.0005319912,0.0001394133,0.0009388655,0.002790416,0.001307544,0.002350602,0.04347982,0.9256807,0.0002775428],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.07360569,0.003051826,0.004755037,0.1006737,0.005855616,0.0008086523,0.002455015,0.0007047536,0.8080897],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6406822,0.002572836,0.005488107,0.1488586,0.004244773,0.0008446159,0.001125237,0.0002403109,0.1959433],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.3807073,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7569827,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518157","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1001","title":"Equality: The Most Difficult Right","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Social Policy and Reform Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Law and economics; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Beverley McLachlin","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06527068037599286,"gpt":0.3726214964129904,"spread":0.3073508160369975,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01605819,0.0005374472,0.001191727,0.0009849661,0.01672619,0.01251973,0.002505331,0.01089784,0.01825907],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02603273,0.0004063179,0.0007131745,0.0007715377,0.05780152,0.01973665,0.01111847,0.01716509,0.003491705],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009796237,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01373509,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02976067,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02931382,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9793093,0.008369596,0.0005390517,0.003807625,0.004413545,0.003560878],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9901244,0.004912313,0.0003259112,0.001508778,0.0017922,0.001336401],"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":[0.000005964236,0.000006185315,0.00008800075,0.00001157401,0.000002609944,0.00004474184,0.001190816,0.00002517857,0.00003167073,0.9789336,0.01451157,0.005148114],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001537179,0.000009746614,0.0001868019,0.000185435,0.00000531286,0.0001024965,0.003847726,0.0001013149,0.0001208958,0.7725919,0.2228151,0.00001787146],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.009009924,0.00861035,0.01031677,0.4658032,0.004614924,0.00004113776,0.0001527526,0.00006579992,0.501385],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6692884,0.00524927,0.006084146,0.1970309,0.006333347,0.0001658972,0.0001606895,0.0002874487,0.1153999],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.02976067,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08492488,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1588999869","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1274","title":"The Arbitrariness in “Arbitrariness” (And Overbreadth and Gross Disproportionality): Principle and Democracy in Section 7 of the Charter","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Arbitrariness; Proportionality (law); Charter; Law; Democracy; Supreme court; Normative; Political science; Politics; Government (linguistics); Law and economics; Sociology; Epistemology","authors":[{"name":"Alana Klein","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01966685127228478,"gpt":0.2924388884956059,"spread":0.2727720372233211,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02171619,0.0005342963,0.0008029427,0.001611862,0.01156479,0.01441654,0.002465995,0.005534645,0.002701062],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02145708,0.0006083812,0.001249752,0.001209761,0.07794873,0.007328413,0.006190698,0.01217551,0.0004897803],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01799207,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03845471,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1553447,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1509309,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9720119,0.01017961,0.0009402189,0.004127064,0.008585555,0.004155651],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9896027,0.005551739,0.0008344427,0.001621351,0.001874558,0.000515217],"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":[0.000002770762,0.000001835208,0.00007504621,0.000004125196,0.000001263502,0.00001322167,0.0008990464,0.00007497903,0.00003808191,0.9971474,0.0005506559,0.001191714],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001145764,0.00002123514,0.0006649261,0.0001016451,0.00001308973,0.00004680867,0.0007929699,0.0005375206,0.0004689089,0.93195,0.06534964,0.00004189864],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.06065325,0.003118442,0.1217237,0.03993471,0.001058836,0.0002049583,0.0001531506,0.0002105371,0.7729424],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9351606,0.0008091847,0.01992581,0.009086094,0.000527669,0.000266408,0.00006081352,0.0001145517,0.03404884],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8446553,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.308881,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1511124634","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1168","title":"Narrowing Interjurisdictional Immunity","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"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; Federalism; Law; Doctrine; Jurisdiction; Political science; Sovereign immunity; Qualified immunity; Legislation; Federal jurisdiction; Law and economics; Economics; Politics","authors":[{"name":"Peter W. Hogg","is_ca":false},{"name":"Rahat Godil","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06306659848464101,"gpt":0.3438547994370931,"spread":0.2807882009524521,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005246317,0.0002782742,0.0005113186,0.001921652,0.007106377,0.005705222,0.003158812,0.004133087,0.005182411],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01153541,0.0003811732,0.0007851645,0.001095632,0.01978613,0.005553729,0.00699437,0.009105743,0.0006553993],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01413026,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01709041,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.09936544,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1459069,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9912298,0.001167425,0.0002741193,0.001398338,0.00391493,0.00201545],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9951768,0.001839512,0.0002714181,0.0008380347,0.001547851,0.0003263528],"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":[0.000002991236,0.000005532236,0.0002251335,0.00001144654,0.000001855412,0.00005519028,0.001143075,0.0001298529,0.0001411967,0.9922748,0.001508791,0.004500004],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001734445,0.00004507044,0.002948279,0.0004462865,0.00004249214,0.0004094104,0.002819073,0.001868015,0.001714765,0.6481374,0.3414909,0.00006103348],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.06547581,0.007420304,0.04224424,0.02271349,0.0009332271,0.00008132598,0.00008258131,0.0001136361,0.8609354],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9500812,0.001941639,0.005410591,0.01080737,0.0003185262,0.00004902566,0.00004793216,0.00005278686,0.03129094],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.09936544,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1975741,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1755290261","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1257","title":"“Dollars Versus [Equality] Rights”: Money and the Limits on Distributive Justice","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"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":"Charter; Distributive justice; Political science; Plaintiff; Law and economics; Supreme court; Adjudication; Government (linguistics); Social rights; Economics; Economic Justice; Law; Public economics; Politics","authors":[{"name":"Hester Lessard","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08993198609582952,"gpt":0.3613987024357866,"spread":0.2714667163399571,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006888356,0.0004641522,0.0006938289,0.00153211,0.009849108,0.01650951,0.00243788,0.006510922,0.009073661],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01591622,0.0003512129,0.0006143416,0.001625492,0.04738935,0.01177898,0.006338348,0.007402892,0.0005478575],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02532623,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02236748,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.213073,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2792773,"domain_scores_codex":[0.985674,0.003869768,0.0002787943,0.001251849,0.005550812,0.003374758],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9946733,0.002812911,0.000439354,0.0005274572,0.001019847,0.0005272042],"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":[0.000005315796,0.00000258544,0.000114134,0.000005009517,0.000001482164,0.00002068557,0.0004695988,0.00005344988,0.00002913565,0.9965473,0.001183802,0.001567538],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002278981,0.00001659999,0.001656948,0.0001708915,0.00001437533,0.00005996647,0.001965729,0.0005983948,0.0003696394,0.9269297,0.06815958,0.00003537512],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.07737834,0.007141131,0.019628,0.1015071,0.0004040646,0.00006607535,0.0001856145,0.000053099,0.7936366],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9523751,0.001362257,0.00308414,0.01168638,0.0003893694,0.00008032245,0.0000435179,0.00004948004,0.03092942],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.213073,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4236656,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1519182674","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1074","title":"Reversal of Fortune: Litigating Health Care Reform in Auton v. British Columbia","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Constitutionality; Legal guardian; Supreme court; Political science; Law; Public administration; Health care; Guardian","authors":[{"name":"Christopher P. Manfredi","is_ca":true},{"name":"Antonia Maioni","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04945784528826,"gpt":0.420908958683877,"spread":0.371451113395617,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005965931,0.0003272684,0.0005412179,0.001500456,0.02953026,0.01275889,0.002320718,0.01583195,0.003450902],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01585758,0.0006732621,0.0005650308,0.001631994,0.0139439,0.002416485,0.004471824,0.0143809,0.0003298897],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06056068,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09347029,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9258572,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9566393,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9883155,0.002475841,0.0002479336,0.0007782131,0.002763913,0.00541877],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9946164,0.003087039,0.0002464717,0.0002095282,0.0009613981,0.0008790924],"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":[0.000123932,0.0001313729,0.01027795,0.0001199071,0.00005720956,0.005962129,0.03526428,0.001736799,0.001815798,0.8745642,0.04592326,0.02402318],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006300104,0.0004343321,0.06090806,0.0009838081,0.0003123032,0.002636011,0.08369523,0.009386063,0.005562472,0.2297992,0.604967,0.0006855045],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.3557201,0.005460141,0.00197095,0.1570795,0.0004660069,0.0002491272,0.0001370138,0.00006048236,0.4788567],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9229581,0.0009557161,0.0005173159,0.03906416,0.00008169767,0.0000891731,0.00003767011,0.00001417485,0.03628202],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9394393,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4394005,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1812980385","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1243","title":"The Impact of the Charter on the Law of Sexual Assault: Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est La Même Chose","year":2012,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Law; Legislation; Supreme court; Sexual assault; Political science; Sexual violence; Dignity; Autonomy; Criminal code; Criminology; Sociology; Criminal law; Psychology; Poison control; Suicide prevention; Medicine","authors":[{"name":"Martha Shaffer","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1139827211992892,"gpt":0.384400399880327,"spread":0.2704176786810379,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006615728,0.0002769896,0.000276189,0.0009277058,0.005212183,0.008766657,0.0008803591,0.005728063,0.004300837],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01914798,0.0002648955,0.0006150558,0.000557657,0.01842627,0.008948212,0.002983989,0.01372463,0.0009191314],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008902422,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0105208,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05975178,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03905596,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9921434,0.003131422,0.0002524773,0.0008208093,0.002811292,0.0008405576],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9885795,0.006887208,0.000682499,0.0007986759,0.002291329,0.0007609015],"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":[0.00003196928,0.0000230175,0.0007188046,0.00008270459,0.000008585334,0.000186537,0.00466034,0.0003036539,0.0002543228,0.7935615,0.1618912,0.03827737],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009256511,0.00003152256,0.0009612044,0.0002785287,0.000008206056,0.000142539,0.001124384,0.0001608482,0.0003252978,0.0427998,0.9541193,0.00003900542],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.009214316,0.02804639,0.003362934,0.8107169,0.02496681,0.0000314125,0.00010362,0.00004811187,0.1235095],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4023897,0.03353208,0.005832515,0.3854262,0.0343299,0.0001039149,0.0001294799,0.0002123712,0.1380439],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9402483,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.118808,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1599077220","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1223","title":"Contractual and Covenantal Conceptions of Modern Treaty Interpretation","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Ombudsman and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Interpretation (philosophy); Treaty; Negotiation; Supreme court; Law; Covenant; Sociology; Political science; Law and economics; Philosophy","authors":[{"name":"Dwight Newman","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05609932130275677,"gpt":0.3180383364535931,"spread":0.2619390151508364,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01863796,0.0005516573,0.000741877,0.004418175,0.01119779,0.01742893,0.003713879,0.008271078,0.004462934],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02192811,0.0005672589,0.0009251614,0.005035189,0.07656521,0.01029536,0.004437212,0.01315231,0.0004250971],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04559459,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03070573,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1954105,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.133662,"domain_scores_codex":[0.962835,0.01506777,0.001288995,0.002816264,0.01369752,0.004294556],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9899031,0.004347482,0.001141544,0.001249401,0.002802674,0.0005558593],"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":[6.374089e-7,0.000001010598,0.00001717174,0.000002767096,7.12845e-7,0.00000388608,0.0005797846,0.00003666725,0.000004705549,0.9986709,0.000369805,0.0003120234],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009235486,0.000004563563,0.0003306982,0.00007547304,0.000006331549,0.00003560222,0.0009908887,0.0006886434,0.00005422377,0.9444773,0.05330598,0.00002104475],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.0211125,0.009791741,0.07209715,0.06153214,0.0009761122,0.0001391489,0.0001822713,0.00009167194,0.8340772],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9331803,0.003237293,0.01722956,0.01053382,0.00127014,0.0003421599,0.0001287311,0.0001137373,0.03396425],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1954105,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3885462,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1609483509","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1187","title":"Section 1, Constitutional Reasoning and Cultural Difference: Assessing the Impacts of Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"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":"Adjudication; Charter; Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Law; Constitutionalism; Irony; Political science; Constitutional law; Section (typography); Economic Justice; Sociology; Epistemology; Law and economics; Philosophy; Computer science; Democracy","authors":[{"name":"Benjamin L. Berger","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03126204350353062,"gpt":0.3525673312348134,"spread":0.3213052877312828,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005682072,0.0003775402,0.0004085924,0.002487994,0.01726266,0.008212773,0.003176514,0.003735383,0.0049771],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02336804,0.0004228993,0.0004049076,0.003572301,0.01261333,0.002047913,0.002952838,0.004286123,0.0001931966],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08665247,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1332773,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9837734,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9945248,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9838192,0.002011147,0.0002181899,0.0006653825,0.009856164,0.003430074],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9887989,0.005464974,0.0008439865,0.0002893569,0.003247532,0.001355239],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0003119092,0.0003122416,0.1096829,0.0004535214,0.0001314321,0.002553202,0.032943,0.002604361,0.001037437,0.7059566,0.08634079,0.05767259],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002236695,0.0005830803,0.4456392,0.001784764,0.0004982767,0.0005625205,0.09975419,0.002208695,0.002722373,0.08179728,0.3638625,0.0003634362],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.4785254,0.01351168,0.00060569,0.05102808,0.000397535,0.0003313125,0.0007228808,0.00002865352,0.4548488],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9565365,0.003181535,0.0004840058,0.0111414,0.00008302816,0.00006485297,0.0002140543,0.00001286899,0.02828181],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.08665247,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6287106,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1960694789","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1174","title":"When Secret Intelligence Becomes Evidence: Some Implications of Khadr and Charkaoui II","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Secrecy; Intelligence analysis; Statutory interpretation; Law; Supreme court; Statutory law; Context (archaeology); Political science; Intelligence cycle; Psychology; Judicial interpretation; Law and economics; Sociology; Military intelligence; History","authors":[{"name":"Kent Roach","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1033545586183929,"gpt":0.3914586230328093,"spread":0.2881040644144163,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02496728,0.0003943498,0.00110135,0.003397715,0.01489714,0.02403409,0.004135146,0.01664058,0.001555219],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04751626,0.0007696354,0.0006763323,0.00442598,0.07124083,0.01315588,0.004929225,0.01948491,0.0002987307],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05411587,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07307608,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5484865,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5159166,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9724984,0.009056783,0.001276975,0.002362542,0.01185438,0.002950852],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9499344,0.03645005,0.001611232,0.00144785,0.009366246,0.001190287],"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":[0.00001269494,0.000007387744,0.0003131111,0.0001187717,0.000008318352,0.0006493563,0.00916303,0.00007467699,0.00007236534,0.9615898,0.01826392,0.009726684],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004278854,0.00003314838,0.002885229,0.002791891,0.00007764922,0.001053743,0.02735266,0.000447527,0.0007703818,0.4061038,0.5582532,0.0001880647],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01214117,0.1082582,0.002380594,0.710437,0.003051686,0.00007403942,0.0001064594,0.00002461109,0.1635263],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6531614,0.09982009,0.003877113,0.2103816,0.003654036,0.0001111171,0.00006772903,0.00005640883,0.02887049],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5484865,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.908345,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1882354232","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1278","title":"The (Re)Discovery of the Proportionality Principle in Sentencing in Ipeelee: Constitutionalization and the Emergence of Collective Responsibility","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Proportionality (law); Charter; Supreme court; State responsibility; Political science; Law; State (computer science); Economic Justice; Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science; Human rights; Algorithm","authors":[{"name":"Marie-Ève Sylvestre","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02878928957916958,"gpt":0.3352638882078174,"spread":0.3064745986286478,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02829444,0.000349053,0.0005669781,0.001316241,0.004655985,0.007353201,0.001894057,0.00687297,0.002028714],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04072657,0.0006304008,0.000783724,0.0006919859,0.02527975,0.009752895,0.00739978,0.01812226,0.0002319727],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00485199,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008520028,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0113523,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00958649,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9832084,0.007151973,0.001150203,0.002710985,0.00415555,0.001622968],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.983957,0.0111546,0.0009538787,0.001487198,0.002049541,0.0003978934],"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":[0.000005043028,0.000004657993,0.0001548987,0.00002017446,0.00000380963,0.00009126994,0.002659164,0.0001460686,0.0001919322,0.9919911,0.0005337356,0.004198163],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000567387,0.0001306598,0.002522751,0.0004412374,0.00005047036,0.0005069659,0.00223125,0.001871792,0.003405132,0.8770599,0.111597,0.0001260907],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1907226,0.007102686,0.1693793,0.1273953,0.001572139,0.0004387347,0.0001438646,0.0001655762,0.5030798],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9687365,0.0008130088,0.01057846,0.007544339,0.0003896895,0.0002326379,0.00001514591,0.0000370148,0.01165324],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.02829444,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1496371,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1746578005","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1289","title":"Reconsidering Reconciliation: The Long Game","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and 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":"Sovereignty; Jurisprudence; Law; Constitution; Supreme court; Treaty; Honour; Sociology; Treaty of Waitangi; Colonialism; Jurisdiction; Economic Justice; Political science; Premise; Politics; Epistemology","authors":[{"name":"Jeffery Hewitt","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06540845763291948,"gpt":0.3244463631188702,"spread":0.2590379054859507,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0586716,0.0005699698,0.001499958,0.002338734,0.01992795,0.02217744,0.006109008,0.02093286,0.004442239],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05148738,0.000616301,0.000977281,0.002343031,0.08387604,0.02524741,0.01365186,0.02535402,0.0008834781],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02178458,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04464053,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.06137838,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07165211,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9360625,0.04213485,0.00162372,0.004250094,0.01108378,0.004845162],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9620738,0.02813091,0.001076408,0.002738041,0.004838046,0.001142828],"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":[0.000003871827,0.000004865194,0.00003762574,0.00003696259,0.00000761521,0.00004424399,0.002489341,0.00009446463,0.00001911191,0.9828832,0.008334844,0.006043845],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003091433,0.00001755557,0.0001829833,0.0004908404,0.000018605,0.0001036418,0.005164601,0.0003186275,0.0001322331,0.7944128,0.1990948,0.00003238985],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","genre_scores_codex":[0.01018125,0.07090761,0.02339767,0.6458016,0.003451134,0.00009815653,0.00004678061,0.0001068698,0.2460089],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7641444,0.02422162,0.01154652,0.1650149,0.004653413,0.0003381371,0.00007007856,0.0002200986,0.02979089],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","teacher_disagreement_score":0.06137838,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3102887,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1780258276","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1095","title":"Right Theory, Wrong Reasons: Dynamic Interpretation, the Charter and “Fundamental Laws”","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"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":"Section (typography); Jurisprudence; Law; Charter; Meaning (existential); Interpretation (philosophy); Epistemology; Adjudication; CLARITY; Surprise; Doctrine; Sociology; Political science; Philosophy; Linguistics; Computer science","authors":[{"name":"Randal N. M. Graham","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01085061491488946,"gpt":0.2856094916406576,"spread":0.2747588767257682,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01251315,0.0007351814,0.0006875821,0.00233089,0.005884172,0.01142123,0.002445274,0.008274004,0.005565297],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01562882,0.0005592004,0.0008599082,0.001780201,0.08042152,0.01832619,0.004290976,0.009197708,0.0007893742],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008848915,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006640783,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009383743,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007538431,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9879758,0.007637706,0.0003306119,0.001400042,0.001707628,0.0009482042],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9906624,0.006044485,0.000643936,0.001327998,0.001015766,0.0003054771],"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":[0.000001501727,0.000001239326,0.00001950149,0.000003412815,5.779703e-7,0.0000101047,0.0005442118,0.0000302494,0.00000477566,0.998035,0.0009248522,0.0004246403],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006021397,0.000001732883,0.00003842158,0.00002179943,0.000001636716,0.00001981481,0.000418916,0.000162902,0.0000329576,0.9856068,0.01368477,0.000004118369],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.02407373,0.00891023,0.1258419,0.152109,0.001372367,0.00008337356,0.0002676948,0.0001546019,0.6871872],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.943337,0.001704088,0.01455777,0.01342214,0.001226746,0.0002078382,0.0001235454,0.0001516561,0.0252692],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.01251315,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06617665,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2936949072","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1329","title":"The Promise and Limits of Cooperative Federalism as a Constitutional Principle","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Political Systems and Governance","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":"Federalism; Cooperative federalism; Dual federalism; Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Sovereignty; Political science; Separation of powers; Law and economics; Constitution; Politics; Law; Doctrine; New Federalism; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Warren J. Newman","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04383165941633847,"gpt":0.3442532838732444,"spread":0.300421624456906,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04216332,0.0005613779,0.001326209,0.001617435,0.01283115,0.01555929,0.003664294,0.009153149,0.00383076],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03404114,0.0007019566,0.001121671,0.001659981,0.08618546,0.01953335,0.009531642,0.01712483,0.0007139096],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02866581,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03241334,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1297193,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.09901971,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9686508,0.01175494,0.0008826425,0.004844424,0.01053354,0.003333709],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9683565,0.02076175,0.001124433,0.0039606,0.004146171,0.001650466],"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":[0.000001240261,0.000001109336,0.00001538368,0.000003672912,9.521997e-7,0.000004988542,0.0002021687,0.00006199623,0.00001094774,0.9987663,0.0002517467,0.0006795658],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001162938,0.000008021932,0.00009493798,0.00007306091,0.000006720157,0.00001698023,0.000200485,0.0004549322,0.00006368913,0.9669146,0.03214217,0.00001267153],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.02844904,0.01783455,0.1201658,0.1695618,0.0009943886,0.000102247,0.0001988823,0.0001438112,0.6625495],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.926824,0.004908994,0.02342379,0.01717253,0.001629299,0.0004086913,0.00009918355,0.00009743869,0.02543606],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1297193,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2579286,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1605145486","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1271","title":"Hate Speech and the Reasonable Supreme Court of Canada","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection","field":"Computer Science","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":"Constitutionality; Supreme court; Law; Hatred; Human rights; Political science; Legislation; Commission; Harm; Fundamental rights; Tribunal; Sociology; Politics","authors":[{"name":"Mark J. Freiman","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01132392969520008,"gpt":0.215569236149523,"spread":0.2042453064543229,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015483,0.0004647388,0.0008598591,0.002054473,0.02671826,0.01737176,0.003269026,0.01386236,0.004674486],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04788561,0.001221602,0.0009236236,0.002333184,0.0132686,0.003803732,0.003485456,0.01631,0.0004437543],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09060945,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1811748,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9641689,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9745054,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9795196,0.00336102,0.0009614491,0.002672992,0.00777689,0.005708053],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9683994,0.01503316,0.001271176,0.001139749,0.01189749,0.002259058],"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":[0.00004237229,0.00001861333,0.002153219,0.00009051567,0.00003791753,0.0006208197,0.004785798,0.000472131,0.0005105396,0.9432982,0.04074189,0.007228004],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002210862,0.0001022107,0.02090475,0.001446332,0.0003413438,0.0003349444,0.01097798,0.003800994,0.002799963,0.2508495,0.7075268,0.0006941681],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1222169,0.01791604,0.008361956,0.2637208,0.002550034,0.0005741426,0.00129331,0.0002108331,0.5831561],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8397895,0.003058135,0.0028708,0.08440157,0.0003291639,0.0002138004,0.000251378,0.00005754963,0.06902818],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09060945,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6574206,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1484087257","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1110","title":"Twenty-Five Years in Search of a Reasonable Approach","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Charter; Legislature; Scope (computer science); Code (set theory); Criminal code; Law; Criminal procedure; Political science; Section (typography); Law and economics; Criminal law; Computer science; Sociology; Programming language","authors":[{"name":"Michal Fairburn","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08967049957305391,"gpt":0.3508277943113572,"spread":0.2611572947383033,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02886594,0.0007079165,0.0008779797,0.00216435,0.006338105,0.009714874,0.001639886,0.005732831,0.008179979],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03269014,0.0004509995,0.000691974,0.001599017,0.02381284,0.009215673,0.009239471,0.01238406,0.002468588],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01048207,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01114293,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.006651401,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.009328494,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9874746,0.006290666,0.0009921768,0.001695367,0.00257329,0.0009738497],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9850646,0.007262609,0.0009827088,0.001334805,0.003551193,0.001804053],"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":[0.00007044168,0.00005632422,0.0005060037,0.0002354357,0.00002854468,0.0002021629,0.004291689,0.0003307829,0.000170374,0.9151572,0.03893224,0.04001887],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001946816,0.00007647184,0.0004487587,0.0007480513,0.00001085106,0.0001561977,0.002856034,0.0001785105,0.0001991293,0.1873107,0.8079618,0.00003399717],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01835173,0.2187551,0.02059483,0.5808626,0.01594979,0.0001855607,0.0002679641,0.0001276613,0.1449046],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4427739,0.1301855,0.03296869,0.2592413,0.00988254,0.000681555,0.0004296305,0.0002690739,0.123568],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.02886594,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1526595,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1863931487","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1124","title":"Moral Judgment, Criminal Law and the Constitutional Protection of Religion","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"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":"Law; Criminal law; Political science; Constitutionality; Comparative law; Supreme court; Constitutional law; Theory of criminal justice; Criminal justice; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Benjamin L. Berger","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06175518712550752,"gpt":0.3115141845506743,"spread":0.2497589974251668,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003915785,0.0001823094,0.0004345491,0.001954097,0.007036147,0.006975531,0.001255425,0.002641692,0.002446047],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009411918,0.0001651785,0.0002068987,0.002175948,0.03990321,0.002156952,0.00126013,0.003219949,0.0001799883],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03041345,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05988635,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7693274,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8225002,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9954905,0.001331144,0.00009076828,0.0002854502,0.001659267,0.001142923],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9956321,0.001984578,0.0004172626,0.0002052479,0.001219916,0.000540918],"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":[0.000006347193,0.00001352195,0.0009038305,0.0001056769,0.000008028625,0.00009829418,0.001927727,0.0003505614,0.0001059689,0.9738911,0.005053578,0.01753545],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003631943,0.00003638391,0.02518871,0.0007767748,0.0000351617,0.0001689573,0.0058387,0.0005721698,0.0002321396,0.7090062,0.2580539,0.00005459513],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.09186573,0.154162,0.004277458,0.1352807,0.0009527748,0.0000536732,0.0001504926,0.00003842386,0.6132187],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9621065,0.02246097,0.0006865691,0.005734692,0.0003108238,0.00001340724,0.00003398006,0.000006575448,0.008646629],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7693274,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4640621,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121144733","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1385","title":"One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? Substantive Equality, Systemic Discrimination and Pay Equity at the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Discrimination and Equality Law","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":"Appeal; Supreme court; Law; Charter; Political science; Employment discrimination; Equity (law); Jurisprudence","authors":[{"name":"Fay Faraday","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1104818675657516,"gpt":0.3617591152709422,"spread":0.2512772477051906,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005029053,0.0004307732,0.0007503773,0.001098311,0.03161991,0.01776265,0.003086935,0.01197267,0.007498027],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01217949,0.0005539926,0.0006067467,0.001684164,0.01852511,0.004539948,0.003242511,0.01979956,0.0005626692],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1105454,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1706938,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9812549,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9903489,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9886197,0.0009000499,0.0001788086,0.001407653,0.004751788,0.004141965],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9938133,0.001818877,0.0001924271,0.0002410646,0.0023874,0.001546949],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002317267,0.00001921466,0.001850888,0.00004266099,0.00002447174,0.0003424929,0.002571141,0.0002491812,0.0002240569,0.8201632,0.1606667,0.01382277],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001334838,0.00004128063,0.01175929,0.0008277097,0.0001673146,0.0002312494,0.01209531,0.00222052,0.001062959,0.2741719,0.6969314,0.0003576493],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.04270093,0.01891188,0.003240969,0.6296998,0.003998405,0.00009221017,0.0006126688,0.0001228676,0.3006202],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6957354,0.006205046,0.00237208,0.1949662,0.001562699,0.00008120359,0.0002362613,0.0001158933,0.09872525],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1105454,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8020666,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}