{"meta":{"page":1,"per_page":50,"max_per_page":100,"total":272,"total_is_capped":false,"direct_labels_cover":1,"predictions_cover":272,"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":"99af3ad7142f","filters":{"venue":"The Canadian Bar Review"}},"results":[{"id":"W2922225905","doi":"","title":"LA COUR SUPREME DU CANADA ET LA TRADITION DU DROIT CIVIL","year":2001,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":23,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Political science; Civil law (Civil law); Jurisprudence; Public law","authors":[{"name":"H. Patrick Glenn","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03181982028567717,"gpt":0.2732602105662148,"spread":0.2414403902805376,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001949429,0.0002697413,0.0003775744,0.003482246,0.01350835,0.009547763,0.0009508785,0.00183812,0.007773056],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007539316,0.0002409156,0.0002010153,0.005898555,0.010722,0.002001484,0.001315922,0.002864852,0.0003683427],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08428175,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1160443,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9860868,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9927735,"domain_scores_codex":[0.995514,0.0007563455,0.000071262,0.0003419014,0.002195823,0.001120745],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9946708,0.001730623,0.0004292003,0.0001216113,0.002405937,0.000641712],"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":[0.00002233577,0.0000112515,0.003607482,0.0001932782,0.00001996671,0.000327236,0.01116461,0.0003451901,0.0001881027,0.9095811,0.0276178,0.04692158],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001344694,0.00001737949,0.0265417,0.0008101578,0.00004115751,0.0002220935,0.009986689,0.0003133836,0.0002733521,0.03262388,0.9291032,0.00005355986],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.07751349,0.2453302,0.002366536,0.07196414,0.001200262,0.00002979846,0.0004621797,0.00006603743,0.6010674],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8717821,0.0581801,0.0008322854,0.005261583,0.0004717845,0.00001484385,0.0001403363,0.00004124369,0.06327569],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9157183,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121300722","doi":"","title":"CONSTITUTIONAL AND COMMON LAW DIALOGUES BETWEEN THE SUPREME COURT AND CANADIAN LEGISLATURE","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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; Supreme court; Legislature; Political science; Statutory interpretation; Common law; Constitution; Separation of powers; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Kent Roach","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0629178601273308,"gpt":0.3049347126187453,"spread":0.2420168524914145,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01142013,0.0004673623,0.000485329,0.003218535,0.03533587,0.01777825,0.002234,0.005856565,0.006978835],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02426076,0.0006080556,0.0005332901,0.003956027,0.04289469,0.006381943,0.004083768,0.007452738,0.0004086091],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1423674,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1682347,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9530993,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9743534,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9800514,0.007249258,0.0004124704,0.001704479,0.006675171,0.003907326],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9884424,0.006675278,0.0005637216,0.0005786894,0.002477339,0.001262695],"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":[0.000007023473,0.000005321077,0.000233196,0.00002193589,0.000003855224,0.00009625669,0.0152089,0.0001915621,0.0001001993,0.9666341,0.009543478,0.007954196],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002595702,0.0000199508,0.00594148,0.0004236125,0.0000396688,0.0001389048,0.03163824,0.001170433,0.0005189509,0.2965666,0.6633678,0.0001484031],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.04284261,0.01778566,0.01058168,0.1336208,0.001166116,0.0001275535,0.0002894721,0.0001289948,0.7934571],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9192016,0.004101407,0.004994948,0.009451482,0.0003154921,0.0000826378,0.0001133644,0.00004838375,0.06169079],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1423674,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9947322,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2924176290","doi":"","title":"GAITKEEPING IN CANADA: MIS-STEPS IN ASSESSING THE RELIABILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":12,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Reliability (semiconductor); Identification (biology); Law; Psychology; Political science","authors":[{"name":"Emma CunliffeandGary Edmond","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08591931805928985,"gpt":0.4285089102597314,"spread":0.3425895922004416,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03622115,0.0006402218,0.0009970336,0.009825452,0.01654345,0.0103197,0.005795401,0.004381675,0.002471334],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1377183,0.0007605437,0.0007887401,0.009660235,0.00805075,0.002603346,0.003396031,0.005789151,0.0003330631],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1440988,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3562756,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9948004,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9981858,"domain_scores_codex":[0.945862,0.007013186,0.003094208,0.002407688,0.03627354,0.005349361],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8564892,0.03117957,0.006423044,0.002286627,0.09875917,0.004862372],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001811824,0.0001077282,0.1238244,0.002486583,0.0003024252,0.002424725,0.03027708,0.002508575,0.001404945,0.146292,0.2488809,0.4413095],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009367021,0.0001926146,0.3821364,0.007700386,0.0007086686,0.00136278,0.04046123,0.005740386,0.003907141,0.03321441,0.5237564,0.0007259157],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1236495,0.1085927,0.009609888,0.5433033,0.004786356,0.0005356347,0.001797703,0.0002662858,0.2074587],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8599733,0.03955952,0.01822203,0.0579168,0.0007146224,0.0001042803,0.0004426536,0.0001165065,0.02295037],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1440988,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9927241,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2919374310","doi":"","title":"TREATMENT DELAYED - LIBERTY DENIED","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints","field":"Psychology","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":"Autonomy; Victory; Law; Anguish; Balance (ability); Mental health; Involuntary treatment; Political science; Personal autonomy; Psychiatry; Psychology; Politics","authors":[{"name":"Robert Solomon","is_ca":false},{"name":"Richard O’Reilly","is_ca":false},{"name":"John GrayandMartina Nikolic","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06418376055400837,"gpt":0.3901948568151947,"spread":0.3260110962611863,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004235202,0.0002613966,0.0004604924,0.0008715172,0.00447628,0.002598491,0.001872285,0.004491592,0.01048872],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01292592,0.0003137145,0.0005310673,0.001137126,0.003833051,0.001022365,0.00139001,0.004876232,0.001161579],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03085681,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07752097,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8157555,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.900603,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9925907,0.0009335607,0.0002977801,0.0005901323,0.003824471,0.00176344],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9946149,0.001194077,0.0004139725,0.0004679993,0.002622043,0.0006870732],"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":[0.00007138677,0.000044414,0.004443476,0.0003284227,0.00005032415,0.0009813065,0.001689879,0.0002413463,0.0004439234,0.5776845,0.3228067,0.09121422],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005651863,0.00003143417,0.005544508,0.0004788011,0.00004819054,0.0006020369,0.0005035016,0.0001454408,0.0002291012,0.0110531,0.9812757,0.0000317064],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","genre_scores_codex":[0.023578,0.06331743,0.001925288,0.1294175,0.003831008,0.0001996596,0.0007098591,0.00007908812,0.7769421],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5491427,0.04405389,0.001514661,0.1185995,0.002297377,0.0001507793,0.0009635091,0.00006833954,0.2832093],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1842445,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3706591,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948682131","doi":"","title":"THE CHANGING FAMILY, RIGHTS DISCOURSE AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Family law; Common law; Public law; Jurisprudence; Fundamental rights; Sociology; Human rights","authors":[{"name":"Alison Harvison Young","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02986626369755888,"gpt":0.293839664566131,"spread":0.2639734008685721,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003568871,0.0002491133,0.0004240668,0.003054604,0.02843799,0.01338103,0.00190476,0.004875959,0.003500598],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01052095,0.0002758826,0.0002243334,0.004999767,0.02937334,0.003510653,0.00219285,0.00432721,0.0002312821],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1778682,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1781072,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9912486,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.993488,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9937627,0.001246353,0.0001213505,0.0005204133,0.002479034,0.001870199],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9926523,0.002783273,0.0005273831,0.0001408566,0.002752571,0.001143619],"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":[0.00001185716,0.00001545195,0.002017174,0.0001337119,0.00001030158,0.000322895,0.02093203,0.00028005,0.0001091734,0.888379,0.06146764,0.02632066],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001941022,0.0000190304,0.02642247,0.001285779,0.00004312749,0.0001953133,0.03984339,0.0004796904,0.0002022015,0.0710267,0.8603618,0.000101096],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.07648874,0.2118044,0.0005273748,0.3425519,0.001663698,0.00002303661,0.0002054636,0.00004035585,0.3666951],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9002346,0.04436621,0.0003679902,0.02315759,0.0004653363,0.00001671503,0.00006599673,0.00002961645,0.03129592],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8221318,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9535563,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951849717","doi":"","title":"THE SUPREME COURT, FEDERALISM AND METAPHORS OF MODERATION","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Political Systems and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Federalism; Metaphor; Supreme court; Political science; Adjudication; Law; Ideal (ethics); Constitution; Democracy; Judicial review; Charter; Dual federalism; Law and economics; Context (archaeology); Sociology; Philosophy; History; Politics; Linguistics","authors":[{"name":"Donna Greschner","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02893120900932644,"gpt":0.2853290397411665,"spread":0.2563978307318401,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003337045,0.0003501129,0.0003894011,0.002331939,0.009286969,0.007266141,0.001065939,0.001927117,0.002864834],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005086056,0.0002068478,0.0002535547,0.002739273,0.03547037,0.003777823,0.002199742,0.003056288,0.0002124402],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03213083,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02142455,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3901529,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4354789,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9962829,0.002001809,0.00005266599,0.0002688527,0.0007505637,0.0006432352],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983986,0.0009293503,0.0001416871,0.00008953136,0.0002937564,0.0001471125],"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":[0.000002244619,7.296446e-7,0.00004392424,0.000007861315,9.01198e-7,0.000008661485,0.0009572554,0.00007250194,0.00002699487,0.9962206,0.001677459,0.0009808826],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002106551,0.000009364286,0.001131764,0.00013144,0.00001154145,0.0000314492,0.002474024,0.0003935395,0.0001018527,0.762733,0.2329455,0.00001534597],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.04577236,0.05891576,0.01854128,0.1136353,0.0009969625,0.00004214087,0.0001582471,0.0001108591,0.7618271],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9768354,0.004834048,0.001183053,0.003507003,0.0002592764,0.00004057278,0.0000246031,0.00002252367,0.01329343],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9678692,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.775764,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2933483557","doi":"","title":"SHOULD DETERRENCE BE A SENTENCING PRINCIPLE UNDER THE YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Deterrence (psychology); Criminology; Criminal justice; Political science; Legislature; Supreme court; Economic Justice; Law; Deterrence theory; Sentencing guidelines; Psychology","authors":[{"name":"Raymond R. Corrado","is_ca":false},{"name":"Karla Gronsdahl","is_ca":false},{"name":"David MacAlisterandIrwin Cohen","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1545531828942312,"gpt":0.3867924764019229,"spread":0.2322392935076917,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009641266,0.0002165342,0.0004868038,0.002128949,0.00411318,0.004397883,0.001431433,0.001951771,0.001553712],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0613615,0.0002294599,0.0003552364,0.002861097,0.003204557,0.001537195,0.0009893238,0.002211507,0.0002041031],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02323718,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08895367,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8956997,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9545971,"domain_scores_codex":[0.990422,0.001674414,0.0005052392,0.0004849991,0.003993236,0.002920036],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9664176,0.01348286,0.007332066,0.0006667653,0.01076321,0.001337549],"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":[0.0003377075,0.0001564311,0.3575182,0.00192394,0.00025328,0.001091492,0.03013542,0.0009531461,0.0008840787,0.3623973,0.03747691,0.206872],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003856546,0.0001486863,0.8181426,0.002036506,0.000383993,0.0005634769,0.03600632,0.0007129071,0.0007577579,0.01390054,0.1272242,0.00008443836],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.7381979,0.04052884,0.001421098,0.05548185,0.0006246901,0.0002445737,0.001101003,0.00002338717,0.1623767],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9854715,0.006475125,0.0007433547,0.00327443,0.0001254921,0.00003472259,0.0001719489,0.000007235992,0.003696281],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9767628,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2098291,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2963833538","doi":"","title":"THE USES OF METAPHOR: INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Political science; Metaphor; Philosophy","authors":[{"name":"Stephen J. Toope","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02381508983733974,"gpt":0.2755645259190764,"spread":0.2517494360817366,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006401249,0.0004835699,0.000786307,0.004284533,0.03240876,0.0284443,0.002433061,0.009357261,0.008817961],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02157478,0.0005308166,0.0005126472,0.008959428,0.03786812,0.007605874,0.004716782,0.01014257,0.0003636313],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1095933,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1475103,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9726054,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9877336,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9922246,0.002118111,0.0001462544,0.0006707503,0.002316534,0.002523832],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9914094,0.004464214,0.0003652431,0.0002713787,0.002505883,0.0009839524],"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":[0.00001314546,0.000006273204,0.0003573471,0.0000393433,0.000007640122,0.00007801654,0.007994706,0.0001545071,0.0000416216,0.9562801,0.02946868,0.005558708],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003347412,0.00001391478,0.004772256,0.00065525,0.0000741484,0.00009923259,0.02498289,0.0008442995,0.000202732,0.3575854,0.6106068,0.0001295453],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.04709033,0.06253763,0.002726955,0.2212974,0.001500384,0.00004036252,0.0002944845,0.00006972096,0.6644427],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.905876,0.0147215,0.00142716,0.02670374,0.0006860693,0.00004445246,0.0000758449,0.000134146,0.050331],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1095933,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7951588,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3114367262","doi":"","title":"TECHNOLOGY-FACILITATED VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & GIRLS: ASSESSING THE CANADIAN CRIMINAL LAW RESPONSE","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Intimate Partner and Family Violence","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":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Dignity; Criminal law; Autonomy; Domestic violence; Political science; Sexual violence; Criminology; Law; Sociology; Poison control; Human factors and ergonomics","authors":[{"name":"Jane Bailey","is_ca":true},{"name":"Carissima Mathen","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03251093502692979,"gpt":0.3331962900301021,"spread":0.3006853550031723,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01601621,0.0006742946,0.000938872,0.0197483,0.00593099,0.00489071,0.003085526,0.001581398,0.00296977],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04539255,0.0005710372,0.00113805,0.02268699,0.003169856,0.001714437,0.002014548,0.002000412,0.0002449679],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1027614,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2207011,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9851752,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9933942,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9861959,0.002381593,0.001180527,0.0004922345,0.008668656,0.001080964],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9461647,0.01057314,0.005384634,0.0004977691,0.03516321,0.002216524],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0002171014,0.0001461263,0.1058546,0.06344958,0.001076239,0.0008251771,0.05310008,0.0007001725,0.0004396129,0.03179945,0.1340711,0.6083208],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005573278,0.0002377632,0.2463411,0.07354046,0.001991855,0.0009012896,0.05919271,0.0003254398,0.0004878262,0.00121615,0.6154591,0.0002506999],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.07219823,0.7922442,0.0007766958,0.03794516,0.001617963,0.001538403,0.005405542,0.0000336564,0.08824015],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.3366438,0.644526,0.002687071,0.007158643,0.000271048,0.0005671387,0.002249276,0.00003451251,0.005862562],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1027614,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7455893,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2904557932","doi":"","title":"JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: CONTEMPORARY PRESSURES AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSES","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal 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":"Legitimacy; Judicial independence; Independence (probability theory); Law; Criticism; Political science; Judicial activism; Supreme court; Judicial review; Government (linguistics); Judicial opinion; Judicial discretion; Citizenship; Law and economics; Sociology; Politics","authors":[{"name":"Patricia Hughes","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.07678461801054327,"gpt":0.3393280790654607,"spread":0.2625434610549174,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01893753,0.000332447,0.0005567741,0.002947901,0.01411081,0.01858315,0.002371664,0.01041283,0.006894318],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04587225,0.0004817712,0.0002932031,0.004076602,0.05751581,0.008280916,0.006160172,0.01387749,0.0006904454],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0337269,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02504799,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1081851,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1334184,"domain_scores_codex":[0.96978,0.01018559,0.00113496,0.003352688,0.01014548,0.005401284],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9747478,0.01258705,0.002270405,0.001199072,0.00656018,0.002635417],"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":[0.000007184272,0.000007472999,0.0002731212,0.00002963008,0.000002105132,0.00005940091,0.005357985,0.00004415531,0.00004286966,0.97434,0.01313425,0.006701989],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004051075,0.00001934774,0.004109187,0.0005854823,0.00001098937,0.0001545526,0.01981381,0.0001817333,0.0002176772,0.3912866,0.5835325,0.00004753821],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03349458,0.02760916,0.002516376,0.3680173,0.002017415,0.00003612529,0.00007323681,0.00004026261,0.5661955],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.904645,0.01733701,0.0006097534,0.04775593,0.004194268,0.00007821899,0.00004563935,0.00007138497,0.02526287],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9662731,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2447069,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2789536600","doi":"","title":"Gladue and Bail: The Pre-Trial Sentencing of Aboriginal People in Canada","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":"Interim; Context (archaeology); Political science; Interpretation (philosophy); Jurisprudence; Law; Criminology; Sociology; History","authors":[{"name":"Jillian Rogin","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0201298290976058,"gpt":0.3232657907211663,"spread":0.3031359616235605,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01072897,0.0003367726,0.0006415604,0.003573515,0.0166213,0.006354246,0.002780391,0.003324535,0.001623867],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03677254,0.0003466577,0.0004520405,0.005264535,0.008345714,0.001392727,0.002512074,0.006505733,0.0001090432],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1492452,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.338685,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9957022,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9986003,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9886611,0.002152514,0.0004794689,0.0005460375,0.004647852,0.00351312],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9786465,0.006022263,0.001292127,0.00031719,0.0116858,0.002036229],"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":[0.0003327694,0.0001572477,0.07130067,0.004727791,0.0003457635,0.004334173,0.1619899,0.002042512,0.0009715996,0.2647492,0.2270813,0.261967],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001044161,0.0002419809,0.3149273,0.0102053,0.0009786899,0.001100414,0.1952784,0.001629193,0.001276675,0.01404699,0.4596708,0.0005397612],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.3915492,0.2186955,0.001043372,0.2548599,0.003302247,0.0004154558,0.0009064873,0.00004891438,0.129179],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9073468,0.0542651,0.0007232167,0.02281842,0.0003911767,0.00007198281,0.0001846139,0.00002844949,0.01417024],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8507548,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.986755,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2954662719","doi":"","title":"PRISONS OF CULTURE: JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF INDIGENOUS RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, AND NEW ZEALAND","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","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":"Indigenous; Jurisprudence; Law; Indigenous rights; Subject (documents); Political science; Limiting; State (computer science); Human rights; Sociology; Engineering","authors":[{"name":"Michael A. Murphy","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02362215636242978,"gpt":0.2865181886721692,"spread":0.2628960323097395,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004699985,0.0002538077,0.0004935643,0.002470803,0.02740337,0.01136449,0.00214287,0.002219258,0.002037515],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01196893,0.0003343334,0.0002416725,0.002808446,0.05452383,0.003429312,0.005016511,0.004848184,0.00007228825],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09536637,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.113525,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9744869,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9862874,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9932509,0.001925047,0.0001839681,0.0004232451,0.002301432,0.001915318],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9933659,0.002661325,0.0007156177,0.0002824632,0.002111906,0.000862738],"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":[0.00001444368,0.00001743138,0.003528991,0.00008868431,0.00001612022,0.0005736537,0.3557485,0.0002625728,0.0004035344,0.6219825,0.003702279,0.01366123],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003732401,0.00004947845,0.04872432,0.0008063637,0.00009633249,0.0005258868,0.6427222,0.001377657,0.000731608,0.103331,0.2013762,0.0002215675],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.6504959,0.01133587,0.003070454,0.04604826,0.0003395808,0.0001048551,0.00007491531,0.0000343785,0.2884958],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9930804,0.001112157,0.0002608627,0.0008664018,0.00001961786,0.00001616907,0.000005901184,0.000008737994,0.004629823],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.09536637,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6919347,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124036103","doi":"","title":"GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION: TOWARD AN INCLUSIVE AND CONTEXTUAL APPROACH","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Discrimination and Equality Law","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); Legislation; Human rights; Judicial interpretation; Law; Charter; Political science; Disadvantaged; Sociology; Racism; Law and economics","authors":[{"name":"Colleen Sheppard","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1092841654646586,"gpt":0.3740999267922742,"spread":0.2648157613276155,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01752829,0.001314407,0.002305182,0.01408194,0.01642155,0.03278415,0.007150399,0.01166139,0.003783545],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02095896,0.001247845,0.001306214,0.007865498,0.100659,0.02268513,0.01761226,0.01910394,0.0005616909],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03709069,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03777527,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1416769,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2115591,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9789504,0.01084668,0.0009265452,0.001721937,0.005873712,0.00168069],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9862531,0.008652225,0.0008468514,0.001229907,0.00233741,0.00068051],"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":[0.000001241696,0.000002710311,0.00008556608,0.00002995176,0.000002416299,0.00004076848,0.003743971,0.0001044965,0.00003115741,0.9918867,0.0007878347,0.003283061],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006425565,0.000007273845,0.0004154802,0.0006530532,0.00001693382,0.00008426466,0.01216637,0.0003004064,0.0001167976,0.8508974,0.1353065,0.00002903881],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01519343,0.05781159,0.1929695,0.2068371,0.003283701,0.0002885002,0.0002444512,0.0001936723,0.523178],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8100904,0.0404239,0.09164301,0.02559071,0.003267073,0.0006612581,0.000280287,0.0004442812,0.02759907],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8583231,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2817045,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2956540596","doi":"","title":"RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE STATE: CAN PUBLIC OFFICIALS REFUSE TO PERFORM SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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":"Sexual orientation; State (computer science); Law; Supreme court; Religious freedom; Political science; Sociology; Religious belief; Gender studies","authors":[{"name":"Lorraine Lafferty","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02957610657695591,"gpt":0.315738557362676,"spread":0.2861624507857201,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004042305,0.0001364479,0.0003530217,0.001609924,0.01299964,0.00760497,0.001196332,0.00355913,0.002723629],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008842025,0.0002708345,0.0002527751,0.00243121,0.0187382,0.002064313,0.001600374,0.004710283,0.0002275257],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04869298,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1009923,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9658857,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9863752,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9961435,0.0008553271,0.0000706711,0.000181323,0.0009394047,0.001809828],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9957295,0.001639655,0.0003936736,0.0001023182,0.001382929,0.0007517934],"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":[0.00004624893,0.00006155757,0.03449769,0.0002711635,0.00003269716,0.000645811,0.03183987,0.000225497,0.0001536983,0.7863017,0.08243068,0.06349335],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005842732,0.00004883811,0.1315054,0.002232913,0.0001687023,0.0002908453,0.09990356,0.0003786816,0.0002469058,0.07442787,0.6906149,0.0001229028],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.1628325,0.124749,0.000372058,0.4519735,0.001315432,0.0000350063,0.0003626508,0.00001913792,0.2583407],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9045803,0.03981399,0.0001098889,0.03895754,0.0005259305,0.00001580876,0.00009837871,0.000009005461,0.01588926],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04869298,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.353294,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2907040471","doi":"","title":"STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN A NEW NUTSHELL","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Statutory interpretation; Interpreter; Interpretation (philosophy); Statutory law; Argument (complex analysis); Meaning (existential); Legislature; Law; Political science; Epistemology; Sociology; Linguistics; Computer science; Philosophy","authors":[{"name":"Ruth Sullivan","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04890395639949631,"gpt":0.3395160502354411,"spread":0.2906120938359448,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01934911,0.00109705,0.001799972,0.007260502,0.01030121,0.01935932,0.005488525,0.007039533,0.004907059],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02424784,0.0007348774,0.001407645,0.005627222,0.07124575,0.0189872,0.006943046,0.0196483,0.001485033],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0303584,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03336001,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1638402,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1551905,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9736871,0.009397412,0.0009586036,0.0024865,0.01141952,0.002050807],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9902992,0.003906437,0.0006316435,0.00138282,0.00343649,0.0003432317],"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":[0.000001964546,0.000001581618,0.00003485119,0.00001505508,0.000001816825,0.00001248333,0.001113772,0.00007362428,0.0000168475,0.9945609,0.002382605,0.001784614],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008836742,0.000007075782,0.0001686594,0.0003100717,0.00001036151,0.00006356766,0.001327526,0.0004315142,0.0001114643,0.7073452,0.2901823,0.0000333479],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.006955109,0.02350139,0.1610191,0.1776084,0.007778311,0.0001318033,0.0003125695,0.0003624435,0.6223308],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7554862,0.02104692,0.06061837,0.06699159,0.01063267,0.0003963401,0.0006276931,0.001065822,0.08313441],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1638402,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3257731,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2947337420","doi":"","title":"MOVING TOWARD SAME-SEX MARRIAGE","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Parliament; Charter; Political science; Modernization theory; Law; Sociology; Politics","authors":[{"name":"Donald G. Casswell","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.07014460930952837,"gpt":0.3263478769814064,"spread":0.256203267671878,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005710508,0.0001734275,0.00052096,0.002429558,0.007985048,0.004834227,0.001540642,0.0033099,0.003792704],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007342879,0.0002090826,0.0003310914,0.002625662,0.01233751,0.002847672,0.002400752,0.005382048,0.0005071437],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03741779,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0843832,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8455277,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9233377,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9905979,0.001795636,0.0002378207,0.0008163139,0.00487246,0.001679891],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9930162,0.0008811232,0.000385166,0.0002313906,0.004549284,0.0009366547],"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":[0.00001872396,0.00002160963,0.002371163,0.0004478728,0.00001147205,0.0002116956,0.01193441,0.0001107501,0.0002889818,0.7997309,0.0754397,0.1094126],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009438985,0.00001894286,0.006986745,0.0008117509,0.0000153427,0.0002259821,0.006556708,0.00005201248,0.0002091391,0.02196199,0.963132,0.0000199875],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.03399099,0.2357855,0.002309387,0.3331736,0.005866705,0.00006085607,0.0002109246,0.00004214444,0.3885599],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5595099,0.1700108,0.002999645,0.190379,0.001713176,0.00005021017,0.0002177215,0.00004286066,0.07507687],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8455277,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.310764,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123927232","doi":"","title":"REGULATING LAW FIRMS IN CANADA","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","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":"Public law; Law; Commercial law; Private law; Comparative law; Business; Municipal law; Audit; Political science; Law and economics; Economics; Accounting","authors":[{"name":"Adam M. Dodek","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.07193141210284187,"gpt":0.3602584130717074,"spread":0.2883270009688655,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006187513,0.0002256742,0.000252248,0.001610278,0.0176069,0.008188549,0.00205249,0.004615288,0.003837079],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01878956,0.0003714246,0.0003048262,0.002625692,0.00888747,0.001824704,0.002151727,0.00481831,0.00032139],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1297862,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3883336,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.987825,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9930676,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9882669,0.001015369,0.0002607856,0.001045029,0.004854453,0.004557363],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9771115,0.003404783,0.001499851,0.0007035916,0.01315109,0.004129233],"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":[0.00002562521,0.00006982755,0.01730779,0.0002753319,0.00002816747,0.000555955,0.01264716,0.001210545,0.001956281,0.737756,0.1362816,0.09188575],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002965325,0.00003818291,0.0447199,0.0004391544,0.00005584036,0.0001256596,0.01029265,0.0009579708,0.001315999,0.01704549,0.9248779,0.0001016421],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1638464,0.0210087,0.004426274,0.3536562,0.001497001,0.0003588215,0.0005262361,0.0002073052,0.454473],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8488569,0.009497701,0.002584748,0.06260355,0.0002424615,0.00005735764,0.0002297329,0.00004279219,0.07588476],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8702138,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.941669,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125727772","doi":"","title":"THE “ILLUSION OF COMPENSATION”: CY PRÈS DISTRIBUTIONS IN CANADIAN CLASS ACTIONS","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Dispute Resolution and Class Actions","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"Settlement (finance); Class action; Class (philosophy); Jurisprudence; Compensation (psychology); Dispose pattern; Law and economics; Law; Political science; Sociology; Economics; Computer science; Finance; Psychology; Social psychology; Artificial intelligence","authors":[{"name":"Jasminka Kalajdzic","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02790951686658077,"gpt":0.2496346497701641,"spread":0.2217251329035833,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00865258,0.0003035343,0.0003401529,0.002955204,0.01957131,0.0126618,0.002085565,0.003268695,0.003562579],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02146505,0.00043133,0.0003957489,0.003642945,0.02245494,0.003390231,0.003614825,0.005393296,0.0001658913],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1134892,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1065745,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9737325,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9854011,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9826379,0.00301123,0.0003869518,0.001335707,0.008985245,0.003643063],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9893329,0.00426911,0.0009249211,0.0005407091,0.004325563,0.0006067959],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001547141,0.000006642415,0.001955839,0.00004319387,0.00000789513,0.0001334032,0.007714517,0.000384815,0.0001548978,0.9615791,0.009646182,0.01835809],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005112359,0.00005764679,0.03725128,0.0006433721,0.0001144918,0.0003062283,0.03104245,0.002808652,0.001671495,0.1313591,0.7944136,0.000280539],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1756574,0.01405869,0.01032785,0.07636216,0.0005467491,0.0001103545,0.000254497,0.0000914358,0.7225908],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9647703,0.003655108,0.001502057,0.0065487,0.000103548,0.00002346597,0.00003310614,0.00002279626,0.02334099],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1134892,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8234253,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2947375075","doi":"","title":"LAW REFORM AND ITS AGENCIES","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Comparative and International Law Studies","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":"Commission; Mandate; Political science; Demise; Statutory law; Law; Public administration; Multidisciplinary approach; Democracy; Corporate governance; Politics; Management; Economics","authors":[{"name":"Roderick A. Macdonald","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08047739241427969,"gpt":0.3440964757055375,"spread":0.2636190832912578,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009458346,0.0003898323,0.0007689148,0.004166787,0.017453,0.02150653,0.001903414,0.006144,0.01710168],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02539,0.0004134201,0.0004218818,0.006167936,0.02198677,0.004964996,0.005105117,0.007714474,0.001551854],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09160799,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1943651,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8453503,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8101953,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9830154,0.00324979,0.0003780092,0.001352793,0.007650726,0.004353287],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9871792,0.001589925,0.0005557011,0.0007747301,0.007058573,0.002841938],"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":[0.00000581288,0.00001631521,0.0003037991,0.00004047812,0.000004467294,0.00001980503,0.001112872,0.0000855301,0.00002636409,0.9124506,0.06846231,0.01747165],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001125936,0.000009661051,0.001156987,0.000207339,0.000008445047,0.00001650868,0.001412142,0.00009515431,0.00004043133,0.03592981,0.961103,0.000009277776],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.005032863,0.03034966,0.0013532,0.189122,0.001942723,0.0001013612,0.0001774151,0.000102792,0.771818],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4671596,0.02873988,0.001536538,0.06598187,0.002637606,0.0002115255,0.0003421003,0.0001334713,0.4332574],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.908392,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6646656,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2952789473","doi":"","title":"The New Law of Criminal Organizations in Canada","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar 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":"Criminal code; Criminal law; Political science; Law; Convention; Criminology; Organised crime; Theory of criminal justice; Criminal justice; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"David J. Freedman","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03098076626537291,"gpt":0.3077849890407311,"spread":0.2768042227753582,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003100979,0.0004166533,0.0005680751,0.006226395,0.01350969,0.009529013,0.002087553,0.002908928,0.006756519],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01381769,0.0006769339,0.0004690156,0.009284938,0.007212218,0.003179292,0.00201253,0.003904636,0.0005270027],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1943276,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3430979,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9974838,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9984367,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9899913,0.0008056154,0.0003044816,0.0006555993,0.00644579,0.001797258],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9878293,0.001562273,0.0005984682,0.0003282583,0.008526484,0.001155152],"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":[0.0000224974,0.00001721704,0.003721947,0.0004058523,0.0000267873,0.000220264,0.003268823,0.0005087439,0.0001049602,0.7512197,0.1941692,0.04631392],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002190453,0.00001238554,0.01469216,0.0009618637,0.00005550252,0.00009373677,0.002835925,0.0004006248,0.0001187229,0.02955838,0.9511846,0.00006425928],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02753521,0.1474345,0.002259748,0.1253464,0.002534013,0.0002214911,0.002985907,0.0000851621,0.6915976],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6525722,0.1228367,0.004546768,0.04053219,0.0007440368,0.0002121443,0.001877213,0.00009169268,0.1765871],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1943276,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9344658,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2919878300","doi":"","title":"TRANSFORMING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW THE DIDACTIC ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar 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":"Supreme court; Law; Jurisprudence; Administrative law; Political science; Precedent; Mainstream","authors":[{"name":"H. Wade MacLauchlan","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05413915082977199,"gpt":0.3150747902109982,"spread":0.2609356393812262,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01003114,0.0004025896,0.0005270937,0.004610441,0.02329121,0.01907333,0.002369803,0.004709521,0.005795022],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02654627,0.0006540564,0.0003227693,0.004232877,0.02780676,0.003281117,0.005255176,0.007911924,0.0005943508],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.235775,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3632062,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9871773,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9941646,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9865389,0.002275464,0.0002908522,0.001118168,0.006267001,0.003509617],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9762201,0.004370377,0.0007285598,0.000622945,0.01180401,0.006253989],"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":[0.00002687987,0.00003619994,0.002270654,0.0001256944,0.00002086047,0.0002423571,0.005808109,0.0006328248,0.0003807769,0.8197606,0.1155752,0.05511989],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002779577,0.00001923837,0.007689728,0.0003734604,0.00001936669,0.00005776761,0.003439314,0.0006606763,0.0002370779,0.05533975,0.9320586,0.00007724111],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02640919,0.04158638,0.005997584,0.5887254,0.004477823,0.0001183121,0.0004457908,0.0001716922,0.3320678],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8099839,0.02627972,0.006648374,0.06833791,0.002313916,0.0000653438,0.0001619951,0.0001517067,0.08605716],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.764225,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8863927,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2920400168","doi":"","title":"CANADA’S LEGAL PROFESSION: SELF-REGULATING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","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":"Legal profession; Public interest; Privilege (computing); Law; Political science; Value (mathematics); Legal ethics; Legislature; State (computer science); Self-interest; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"John Pearson","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1684789686810212,"gpt":0.4004912744261355,"spread":0.2320123057451143,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003562599,0.0002828435,0.0003676192,0.001166394,0.0275615,0.01491989,0.002138586,0.007689303,0.007724826],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009053904,0.0003459397,0.0005628116,0.001546635,0.02986045,0.004938887,0.004377319,0.01036564,0.0008122157],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1339694,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3260629,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9861951,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.991908,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9920436,0.000806439,0.00009468708,0.0006962847,0.002734462,0.003624535],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9936321,0.0009627034,0.0003644189,0.0002176647,0.001925876,0.002897206],"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":[0.00002144371,0.00003363529,0.003676957,0.00006852169,0.00001095238,0.0004154365,0.02416104,0.00019248,0.0003875514,0.8880418,0.05889472,0.02409547],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004094557,0.00003809815,0.01741029,0.000543131,0.00003739588,0.0003095877,0.05399607,0.001274438,0.0006526534,0.1104164,0.8151205,0.0001604281],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.06640249,0.006008647,0.003640637,0.6788859,0.00127095,0.00005302715,0.0001390058,0.00008888113,0.2435104],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8272028,0.004243032,0.002388414,0.09087614,0.000452153,0.0000367395,0.00008618108,0.00006896058,0.07464564],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8660306,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9720203,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2939098456","doi":"","title":"TOWARDS A COSTS JURISPRUDENCE IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Public interest; Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Commonwealth; Context (archaeology); Political science; Economic Justice; Law; Law and economics; Economics; Geography","authors":[{"name":"Chris Tollefson","is_ca":false},{"name":"Darlene Gilliland","is_ca":false},{"name":"Jerry DeMarco","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.09088388749194683,"gpt":0.3542741545564729,"spread":0.2633902670645261,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03721689,0.0007533069,0.001135573,0.005200299,0.01296491,0.02496451,0.005718246,0.02657265,0.003418929],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05324187,0.001066472,0.001487228,0.002931676,0.07306968,0.01880114,0.008200625,0.03242187,0.0007659121],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04156042,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06855542,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.165432,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1636184,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9392804,0.01738219,0.002080626,0.004269893,0.0319281,0.005058807],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9543827,0.02708156,0.002494218,0.002984036,0.0110848,0.001972587],"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":[8.377493e-7,0.000004548663,0.00003200727,0.000007080968,0.000001091148,0.00001224046,0.0001641356,0.0001121499,0.0000140294,0.9973192,0.00141463,0.0009180328],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001447218,0.000009204978,0.0002303831,0.0001410019,0.000007590519,0.00002931491,0.0005599955,0.0006109294,0.0001163195,0.946539,0.05171867,0.00002301577],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01265857,0.01052566,0.08885077,0.4737685,0.002133876,0.0002170701,0.0001019913,0.0001171383,0.4116265],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7574553,0.007346775,0.05311541,0.1228396,0.006494556,0.0005164969,0.0001046324,0.0001696741,0.0519576],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.834568,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3289381,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2905149855","doi":"","title":"INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS AND IRREPARABLE HARM IN THE FEDERAL COURTS","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Interlocutory; Harm; Plaintiff; Law; Appeal; Jurisprudence; Political science; High Court; Law and economics; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Norman Siebrasse","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03042409735497193,"gpt":0.3312179239207884,"spread":0.3007938265658165,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01387355,0.0003977174,0.0008662467,0.004767958,0.01453521,0.01060786,0.002711707,0.01105027,0.003003166],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01846487,0.0008233108,0.0009212536,0.003653323,0.03304115,0.00400759,0.004180423,0.007255008,0.000332287],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05865448,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07476696,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6674165,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7824043,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9768254,0.005791261,0.0009625365,0.002178139,0.009081806,0.005160946],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9899729,0.00453752,0.0009866611,0.0007709059,0.003125932,0.0006059957],"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":[0.000002621182,0.000004331288,0.000206468,0.00001780039,0.00000403506,0.00004416186,0.0005899484,0.0001323849,0.00006238306,0.9943815,0.001762812,0.002791523],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003227599,0.00003282525,0.005066594,0.0005259485,0.00007581095,0.0001398948,0.002082667,0.00106641,0.0004015014,0.8646233,0.1258644,0.00008838921],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.0796608,0.04299537,0.02339191,0.13679,0.0008122821,0.0001627785,0.0002228425,0.0001400971,0.7158239],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9618257,0.00503166,0.004570928,0.009969431,0.0003631155,0.00005965621,0.00003395991,0.0000159953,0.01812946],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.3325835,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6690844,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948757733","doi":"","title":"PIPEDA: A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"European Criminal Justice and Data Protection","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Legislation; Scope (computer science); Jurisdiction; Political science; Law; Freedom of information; Personally identifiable information; Private sector; Business; Public administration; Computer science","authors":[{"name":"Josh Nisker","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06610119793146595,"gpt":0.3551137673935828,"spread":0.2890125694621168,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0129529,0.0007086185,0.001195457,0.004544332,0.0145134,0.01489617,0.004071116,0.008669127,0.01591648],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0230391,0.0009657748,0.001441273,0.005024946,0.01502414,0.005565635,0.003869128,0.009714448,0.001599624],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07105103,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09787633,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8273351,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8140061,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9853652,0.002425554,0.0004002575,0.002306585,0.006120669,0.003381873],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9871131,0.004927419,0.0004183282,0.001148874,0.005766351,0.0006260264],"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":[0.00000620864,0.00000537916,0.0001956098,0.00001670121,0.000003729668,0.00004952677,0.0003464677,0.0001497304,0.00005526106,0.987176,0.01034005,0.001655279],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001023303,0.00006252343,0.004256052,0.0006665154,0.000139283,0.0001745902,0.002139754,0.003087456,0.0007426212,0.3327407,0.6557402,0.0001480278],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.01863068,0.003726451,0.01253783,0.05990903,0.0006445762,0.0004982215,0.002932861,0.0001557683,0.9009646],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6657463,0.004227775,0.0139738,0.05686871,0.001206035,0.001699356,0.001565605,0.0001739563,0.2545385],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1726649,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5155137,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2904982269","doi":"","title":"RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND THE STANDARD OF CARE OF PHYSICIANS","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Business; Health care; Government (linguistics); Liability; Resource allocation; Quality (philosophy); Public relations; Economics; Political science; Law; Finance","authors":[{"name":"Robert-Jean Chenier","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03770277003715917,"gpt":0.3918240275784649,"spread":0.3541212575413057,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.05443239,0.0004464924,0.000939519,0.002796956,0.005528512,0.01214174,0.004093136,0.01216684,0.003429645],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1061505,0.0005044215,0.0006615915,0.002112581,0.03660174,0.005029247,0.005176237,0.01130464,0.0007670029],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04309333,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09105733,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2698147,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.260507,"domain_scores_codex":[0.8743099,0.04097813,0.004943512,0.008169017,0.06145051,0.01014889],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9314685,0.02877645,0.005651776,0.00587302,0.02361828,0.004611925],"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":[0.00001001111,0.00001152872,0.0003579945,0.00006018773,0.000008767051,0.00003058181,0.0006415574,0.000409854,0.00007193649,0.9611564,0.02320266,0.01403847],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006325296,0.00007774818,0.00572142,0.001487151,0.00002934682,0.0001663779,0.001158375,0.0009983606,0.0003172505,0.5084351,0.4814391,0.0001064461],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.008127849,0.05147623,0.01829149,0.5863476,0.003483878,0.0002149045,0.0001382132,0.00007399668,0.3318458],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7433722,0.02288962,0.02095107,0.1619845,0.006039749,0.0004476481,0.0001757201,0.0001153332,0.04402418],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2698147,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5364885,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[{"model":"gemma","categories":[],"domain":null,"study_design":"not_applicable","genre":"empirical","about_ca_system":false,"about_ca_topic":false,"confidence":"low"},{"model":"gpt","categories":[],"domain":null,"study_design":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre":"commentary","about_ca_system":false,"about_ca_topic":false,"confidence":"high"}],"label_agreement":"split"},{"id":"W2921602097","doi":"","title":"THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND TRIBUNALS - DEFERENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS: A RECENT PHENOMENON OR A RETURN TO BASICS?","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Deference; Scrutiny; Supreme court; Law; Statutory law; Judicial review; Jurisprudence; Appeal; Administrative law; Political science; Standard of review; Judicial opinion","authors":[{"name":"David Mullan","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0904309366278587,"gpt":0.3370649587114566,"spread":0.2466340220835979,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004936329,0.0002356381,0.0005697509,0.003507241,0.02379011,0.01973828,0.002629101,0.005153532,0.004312632],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02274945,0.000402538,0.0002864925,0.008677187,0.0458256,0.004690723,0.002568616,0.006546483,0.0002825075],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1442962,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.182286,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.989538,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9944022,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9903529,0.001458513,0.0001650066,0.0009557846,0.0041749,0.002892872],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9863193,0.00479347,0.001315738,0.0005603274,0.004945822,0.002065344],"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":[0.00001967751,0.00001658698,0.004008808,0.0001005749,0.00001705602,0.0002204679,0.02266635,0.0001724729,0.0001582079,0.9181441,0.03186265,0.02261302],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002791683,0.0000301118,0.04580272,0.0008843035,0.00005382855,0.0002475955,0.02995116,0.0005229987,0.0003806784,0.1021122,0.8198283,0.0001580788],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.1263055,0.09583002,0.002667666,0.4294095,0.001439382,0.00004537717,0.0005468434,0.00008531808,0.3436704],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9402525,0.01530968,0.0005573981,0.0183011,0.0006388394,0.00001258086,0.00008505204,0.00004009452,0.02480273],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1442962,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9924951,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2953525916","doi":"","title":"THE JUDGES AND THE JOURNALS: CITATION OF PERIODICAL LITERATURE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, 1985-2004","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Listing (finance); Citation; Political science; Business","authors":[{"name":"Peter J. McCormick","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02919887257455312,"gpt":0.3312758728203679,"spread":0.3020770002458147,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["bibliometrics"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005508114,0.0004303718,0.000665053,0.06840774,0.007057961,0.009045693,0.001729241,0.001214396,0.003751559],"category_scores_gemma":[0.08129661,0.0004362082,0.000344555,0.1310228,0.003900962,0.001907964,0.001921806,0.00101572,0.0005380238],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1150703,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1938031,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9800652,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9920051,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9846918,0.0008468637,0.00101039,0.0007354242,0.01128394,0.001431581],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8592282,0.01550012,0.02431475,0.001410951,0.09334929,0.006196666],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0003475457,0.00007691646,0.199508,0.00675761,0.000332155,0.001478611,0.03063873,0.0008227905,0.001351911,0.0336214,0.4101766,0.3148877],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002569489,0.00003469858,0.5408939,0.002939756,0.0002280047,0.0004038469,0.01271526,0.0003431584,0.00068123,0.00129427,0.4403326,0.0001075406],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.2913632,0.4409255,0.0005859169,0.05679102,0.004305352,0.0002230253,0.03752141,0.0002252481,0.1680593],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7971535,0.1545116,0.0009431651,0.003388047,0.00138893,0.00006904039,0.007688439,0.00009426799,0.03476308],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9315923,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8348973,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2921948824","doi":"","title":"LAWYERS MEET THE SOCIAL CONTEXT: UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL COMPETENCE","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Cultural competence; Competence (human resources); Social justice; Psychology; Cultural diversity; Cultural values; Social psychology; Sociology; Public relations; Political science; Pedagogy; Social science; Law; Criminology","authors":[{"name":"Rose Voyvodic","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1612604705285253,"gpt":0.4026962245734172,"spread":0.2414357540448919,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003357791,0.0002433331,0.0003958756,0.004171563,0.01687561,0.009057527,0.001538259,0.001344347,0.002407345],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01281383,0.0002679093,0.0002158321,0.003309093,0.01751007,0.004277511,0.005672097,0.002349622,0.0001177881],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06645742,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1014702,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9762379,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9891443,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9954454,0.001370503,0.00009321834,0.0002990122,0.001311957,0.001479923],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.992804,0.001729051,0.001279279,0.0001501324,0.001839045,0.00219854],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000200108,0.00008943379,0.1633515,0.0001351497,0.00004329176,0.0006624918,0.7390308,0.0004314026,0.0003992777,0.04532538,0.002888943,0.04762233],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006732066,0.00002543443,0.2486227,0.0002800912,0.00003529426,0.0001113144,0.7142957,0.0004830601,0.0001382659,0.007754449,0.0282081,0.0000387642],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.9239653,0.001652932,0.0005155843,0.01693242,0.00003315338,0.00003398802,0.00005365568,0.000007636202,0.05680532],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9978347,0.0007255439,0.0001418709,0.0004176236,0.00000641008,0.000004794889,0.00001595984,0.000002625481,0.0008504211],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9762379,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4821846,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125461684","doi":"","title":"LOST IN TRANSITION: ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA’S NEW APPROACH TO JURISDICTION","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Jurisdiction; Law; Jurisprudence; Original jurisdiction; Political science; Divergence (linguistics)","authors":[{"name":"Stephen GAPitelandCherylD Dusten","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02099434145955058,"gpt":0.2603475649832701,"spread":0.2393532235237195,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009084908,0.0003448547,0.000881282,0.003243857,0.03023559,0.02229624,0.004994703,0.009122645,0.003220873],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02887067,0.0004003713,0.0006865436,0.004787661,0.04054738,0.008077515,0.005804675,0.01328292,0.000232238],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1749809,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2083282,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9859675,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9928921,"domain_scores_codex":[0.986896,0.002194775,0.0003068294,0.001182349,0.004905667,0.004514358],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9843203,0.006189411,0.0007799879,0.0006023588,0.006001543,0.002106325],"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":[0.00002133588,0.000012991,0.002609651,0.00006193804,0.00001888136,0.0004602263,0.02640536,0.0004666783,0.000121169,0.9377939,0.01969185,0.0123361],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005928191,0.00003294404,0.01735573,0.001471202,0.0001391854,0.0003522036,0.1201395,0.003557157,0.000594481,0.4458426,0.4102173,0.000238378],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","genre_scores_codex":[0.1758727,0.02465999,0.006580259,0.4934619,0.00167195,0.0000968101,0.0003355409,0.00005996036,0.297261],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9590169,0.003982088,0.001726972,0.02326829,0.0002557553,0.00002632173,0.00006480138,0.00002841658,0.01163044],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1749809,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9569052,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2810014282","doi":"","title":"OBSTACLES TO CROSSING THE DISCRIMINATION THRESHOLD: CONNECTING INDIVIDUAL EXCLUSION TO GROUP-BASED INEQUALITIES","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, Rights, and Freedoms","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"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":"Prima facie; Plaintiff; Supreme court; Context (archaeology); Political science; Law; Prejudice (legal term); Presumption; Common law; Law and economics; Sociology; History","authors":[{"name":"Colleen Sheppard","is_ca":true},{"name":"Mary Louise Chabot","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.09414513416010219,"gpt":0.3446312374123213,"spread":0.2504861032522191,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0130235,0.0002829061,0.0008200551,0.003817817,0.008153198,0.00928082,0.002302582,0.006689904,0.004337282],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03381141,0.000363222,0.0007064113,0.002917331,0.05660107,0.009134809,0.007882839,0.01060043,0.000211475],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02185328,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02240503,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2985905,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3435249,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9865485,0.002968184,0.0004247302,0.002001763,0.004799618,0.003257281],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9764675,0.01500903,0.00210705,0.001587146,0.003197287,0.001631965],"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":[0.00001423042,0.00001417267,0.004205205,0.00005191703,0.00001257638,0.0001671301,0.00288898,0.0001853726,0.0000644926,0.9806967,0.001769386,0.009929913],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002082748,0.00002363919,0.01238211,0.0003978235,0.00002656397,0.0001637876,0.005931526,0.0006609606,0.0001991904,0.9527233,0.02743371,0.00003649402],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.2137258,0.01887476,0.02400621,0.2633756,0.0006504979,0.0001565719,0.0004553152,0.00005979614,0.4786955],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9838951,0.001731589,0.001570526,0.009661741,0.00017522,0.00004286447,0.00003534217,0.00001424963,0.002873389],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2985905,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5937051,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948036181","doi":"","title":"THE CAPABLE MINOR’S HEALTHCARE: WHO DECIDES?","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare","field":"Medicine","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Jurisdiction; Statute; Legislation; Law; Common law; Political science; State (computer science); Minor (academic); Health care","authors":[{"name":"David C Day","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.07458406773120137,"gpt":0.3507669534885536,"spread":0.2761828857573523,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005009063,0.0001348362,0.0003413427,0.0007983255,0.006963324,0.003951853,0.0008625318,0.003653955,0.002659255],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02140622,0.000215457,0.0002616404,0.000472671,0.01070725,0.00276868,0.00220425,0.005463862,0.0003332826],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0143,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04885266,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3630027,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5447837,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9953322,0.001539356,0.0002421478,0.0002696374,0.00128273,0.001333857],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9897585,0.003829831,0.0009837798,0.0001966624,0.00275014,0.002481095],"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":[0.00004006277,0.00005146812,0.01759468,0.00031144,0.00001821274,0.003273902,0.03840238,0.0001322604,0.0006997684,0.6752144,0.1591909,0.1050705],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002142455,0.00007164408,0.02175686,0.002555041,0.00003695603,0.003728673,0.07970858,0.0001714318,0.0005034183,0.1007272,0.7906168,0.0001019621],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","genre_scores_codex":[0.04948819,0.02913866,0.001579697,0.8210661,0.002303753,0.00006384042,0.00009032303,0.00001728362,0.096252],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8294351,0.02653481,0.001525375,0.1167006,0.002235078,0.00004156418,0.00007590143,0.00002572073,0.02342582],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","teacher_disagreement_score":0.6369972,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7217797,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2912979748","doi":"","title":"LAWYERS’ MONOPOLY? THINK AGAIN:: THE REALITY OF NON-LAWYER LEGAL SERVICE PROVISION IN CANADA","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"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":"Monopoly; Legal ethics; Legal profession; Law; Statute; Practice of law; Privilege (computing); Political science; Public interest; Legal advice; Duty; Legal research; Law and economics; Sociology; Economics","authors":[{"name":"Lisa Trabucco","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05613086201205925,"gpt":0.3658218807234167,"spread":0.3096910187113575,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006432968,0.0002445423,0.000774531,0.002714373,0.01772918,0.01309152,0.003295746,0.00523831,0.006756939],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02487857,0.0004205011,0.0004390548,0.004839116,0.01468235,0.004276447,0.002537264,0.006887733,0.0003968242],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1802657,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3192386,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9956558,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9974112,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9886197,0.001288454,0.0002581932,0.001019971,0.005361022,0.003452739],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9777323,0.005514856,0.001572741,0.0004734774,0.01044748,0.004259026],"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":[0.00007013699,0.00007338337,0.018275,0.0009638485,0.0001161161,0.0009626308,0.02401251,0.0006460232,0.0004832131,0.6403641,0.234036,0.07999707],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009507678,0.00005650114,0.06355768,0.003421308,0.0002415752,0.0004231746,0.04438526,0.001277408,0.0005270211,0.04613228,0.8396341,0.0002485948],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.06382846,0.05706514,0.0009655835,0.7416927,0.001082145,0.00006695529,0.000580232,0.00004770417,0.1346711],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8492574,0.03654437,0.001356013,0.09271793,0.0007110852,0.0000390632,0.0002108863,0.00006410011,0.01909913],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8197343,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9507756,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3188768298","doi":"","title":"PREDICTIVE CODING: ADOPTING AND ADAPTING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CIVIL LITIGATION","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Artificial Intelligence in Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Civil procedure; Law; Coding (social sciences); Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Legal ethics; Competence (human resources); Computer science; Civil litigation; Artificial intelligence; Political science; Sociology; Psychology; Social psychology","authors":[{"name":"Gideon Christian","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0762323097118776,"gpt":0.3369551885180661,"spread":0.2607228788061884,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03269189,0.0004253553,0.0004473007,0.006543374,0.003254212,0.01055388,0.003133205,0.003675794,0.00226927],"category_scores_gemma":[0.08998306,0.000470142,0.000590647,0.004879116,0.01755507,0.01221304,0.005133152,0.004019992,0.0003767021],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01060567,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01223946,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01937081,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01949522,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9656455,0.01901694,0.001166747,0.001464881,0.01124195,0.001463967],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9278993,0.05378877,0.003884321,0.006577651,0.007138107,0.000711786],"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":[0.00002667871,0.00004311681,0.00249296,0.0001820388,0.00001467246,0.0001662052,0.003099141,0.008106067,0.0006142906,0.8211778,0.003346469,0.1607306],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003407359,0.0001499388,0.004200967,0.001103539,0.00004260698,0.0005036051,0.003846899,0.04304203,0.00343656,0.827872,0.1156348,0.0001329574],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"methods","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.08473016,0.01192709,0.5561396,0.05063893,0.000861622,0.0008003972,0.0001158816,0.0008428441,0.2939435],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8292364,0.007255768,0.151927,0.003821738,0.0004648709,0.0003491328,0.00009895059,0.0001061921,0.00673987],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.03269189,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1728933,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2920504598","doi":"","title":"CONSTITUTIONAL WORKAROUNDS : SENATE REFORM AND OTHER EXAMPLES","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Political Systems and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Workaround; Constitution; Federalism; Political science; Legislation; Parliament; Law; Constitutional law; CLARITY; Politics; Constitutional amendment; Government (linguistics); Polity; Public administration","authors":[{"name":"Robert E. Hawkins","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.09624698732660815,"gpt":0.2962434847223647,"spread":0.1999964973957565,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03090371,0.0005804147,0.0007903113,0.004058314,0.02412526,0.008648886,0.002982221,0.007025504,0.01099087],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04410449,0.000648292,0.001329187,0.008500111,0.01804475,0.004875225,0.006249655,0.009205025,0.0009258624],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04355269,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05223254,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6782038,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.733188,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9692428,0.0146178,0.0009504799,0.001882817,0.007224522,0.006081673],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9743617,0.01050112,0.0009725451,0.00375137,0.00928052,0.001132784],"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":[0.00002365,0.00002510272,0.0008073272,0.0001244721,0.00002665365,0.0003425867,0.009222978,0.0004130741,0.0001541114,0.9414786,0.03317952,0.01420205],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007477944,0.00003605038,0.003332836,0.0003985655,0.00006041777,0.0002384943,0.006456254,0.0004695813,0.0007012379,0.05270184,0.9354451,0.0000848457],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.05073323,0.01815204,0.01466681,0.09556156,0.002176447,0.0006311683,0.0006797308,0.0002834413,0.8171155],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7975157,0.01336184,0.01332905,0.04398839,0.0009678745,0.0009499393,0.0005400432,0.0003263399,0.1290208],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9564473,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6473826,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2938792628","doi":"","title":"THE ENFORCEMENT OF MULTI-TIERED DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSES IN INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Arbitration and Investment Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Arbitration; Negotiation; Enforcement; Tribunal; Dispute resolution; Mediation; Online dispute resolution; Business; Dispute mechanism; Law and economics; Alternative dispute resolution; Law; Arbitration clause; Process (computing); Compliance (psychology); Resolution (logic); Political science; Compulsory arbitration; Economics; Computer science","authors":[{"name":"Pierre Bienvenu","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0336933488878995,"gpt":0.2569581010407569,"spread":0.2232647521528575,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0303493,0.0003901614,0.0008326489,0.004601868,0.007095542,0.01782555,0.004120725,0.006734309,0.004801812],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04323245,0.001171672,0.0008683078,0.007018492,0.01352685,0.006800819,0.004211904,0.006529366,0.0007858733],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02290527,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03083999,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2610557,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3551758,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9521855,0.009739486,0.00468298,0.00270433,0.02572265,0.004965143],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9670623,0.01564874,0.003853919,0.005184163,0.007368523,0.0008823765],"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":[0.0000108864,0.00001592787,0.0003889989,0.00006076784,0.000005718895,0.0001388192,0.0009927985,0.000676768,0.0003020249,0.9749444,0.003913929,0.01854896],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001122334,0.00008802492,0.006681066,0.001289848,0.00009714429,0.0008170082,0.001686851,0.0104315,0.00400661,0.586127,0.3884211,0.000241556],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.04531108,0.01449624,0.1278402,0.02574178,0.001026079,0.001159269,0.0005409399,0.0004110023,0.7834736],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8231067,0.005978932,0.09658705,0.006500501,0.0006666461,0.0004520619,0.0003237762,0.0001199531,0.06626443],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2610557,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5190724,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951726489","doi":"","title":"CARTOGRAPHIE DE LA MIXITE : LA COMMON LAW ET LA COMPLETUDE DU DROIT CIVIL AU QUEBEC","year":2010,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Civil code; Law; Civil law (Civil law); Political science; Framing (construction); Humanities; Engineering; Public law; Philosophy; Civil engineering","authors":[{"name":"Daniel Jutras","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01509738438777682,"gpt":0.2939697133400309,"spread":0.2788723289522541,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001266086,0.0003589809,0.0003532188,0.004264724,0.00767711,0.006469249,0.0007610117,0.001439355,0.01481752],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003530942,0.0002990493,0.0003296203,0.006143569,0.004896567,0.002171842,0.0008812786,0.002416699,0.0004658632],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0912862,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06477488,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9901431,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9914004,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9983287,0.0003781089,0.00003690573,0.0001841519,0.0007793769,0.0002927587],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9974326,0.0009059559,0.0001432113,0.00009106877,0.001275162,0.0001520434],"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":[0.0000325347,0.00001378214,0.003952544,0.0003666078,0.00003699445,0.0003800018,0.009778637,0.001180138,0.0003205873,0.8501713,0.08749583,0.04627114],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001484432,0.00001379613,0.02405483,0.0006640382,0.00003077175,0.000194618,0.005736693,0.0008357015,0.0002313404,0.01576515,0.9524027,0.00005555664],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.07714712,0.1911236,0.005751024,0.07316929,0.001532242,0.00008986318,0.002739461,0.0001498792,0.6482975],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8096439,0.04481946,0.001821746,0.004316677,0.0003065069,0.00005306533,0.0006227764,0.00007980879,0.1383361],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.0912862,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6623309,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2894643393","doi":"","title":"GENDER-BASED ANALYSIS PLUS (GBA+) AS CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLEMENTATION","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Gender Politics and Representation","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"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":"Vetting; Political science; Misnomer; Constitutional law; Charter; Law; Law and economics; Constitutional right; Sociology; Constitution","authors":[{"name":"Vanessa MacDonnell","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1064301411541917,"gpt":0.4173652034389942,"spread":0.3109350622848025,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03400026,0.0004515895,0.0005628429,0.002169399,0.009437903,0.01473592,0.002073071,0.004728955,0.006906216],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02579175,0.0004023567,0.0005521488,0.00217865,0.0516344,0.006441654,0.006206458,0.00592913,0.0006657306],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03370292,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04514626,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2343191,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2879565,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9707772,0.01508238,0.0006197075,0.002584296,0.007639923,0.003296492],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9853126,0.008150038,0.001120653,0.001710046,0.002987652,0.0007188983],"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":[0.000001862689,0.000001760836,0.0000728517,0.00001326523,0.000001166729,0.000007942499,0.001425612,0.00003707232,0.00004083065,0.991724,0.001670164,0.005003588],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001297156,0.00003301738,0.001538122,0.0003138717,0.00002737782,0.0000758211,0.004221209,0.0005152306,0.0006497488,0.4700478,0.5225108,0.00005403508],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01846248,0.009417851,0.0344248,0.06785805,0.001378073,0.0002108379,0.0001264945,0.0001880357,0.8679335],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8899733,0.004274679,0.01790263,0.02141138,0.0006195473,0.0002649914,0.00005566654,0.0001413837,0.06535638],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7656809,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4659104,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2885224434","doi":"","title":"LESSONS FROM LATIF: GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE EXPERT EVIDENCE IN DISCRIMINATION CASES","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"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":"Circumstantial evidence; Prima facie; Supreme court; Relevance (law); Spell; Respondent; Psychology; Political science; Law; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Ranjan K. Agarwal","is_ca":false},{"name":"Faiz M Lalani","is_ca":false},{"name":"Misha Boutilier","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.3824071737333904,"gpt":0.4173266072963282,"spread":0.03491943356293775,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.1102966,0.001721103,0.0028784,0.009477957,0.02059548,0.02183823,0.01096363,0.04116904,0.004706208],"category_scores_gemma":[0.258771,0.001936843,0.002766908,0.005378218,0.03184265,0.01634933,0.008761743,0.03609981,0.00143912],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0646807,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2372008,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7945406,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.907048,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9060084,0.03622457,0.007795479,0.004157086,0.03230351,0.013511],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.6598393,0.2414727,0.004853865,0.007639668,0.07812947,0.008064997],"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":[0.00008633381,0.0001338869,0.003526946,0.0006134465,0.00008967927,0.002079798,0.01195779,0.001828708,0.0006095516,0.5829052,0.3388633,0.05730537],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000254893,0.00007588037,0.003332704,0.005486152,0.000168665,0.0007066521,0.008027026,0.003690744,0.001305717,0.317087,0.6594344,0.0004302148],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.007047191,0.01270488,0.01036137,0.8877961,0.002969685,0.0002960599,0.000319176,0.0002149293,0.07829058],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.23461,0.01786583,0.07095116,0.6364483,0.004173885,0.0004813796,0.0003938648,0.0003364836,0.03473917],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7945406,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.583311,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2917357851","doi":"","title":"GUANTANAMO NORTH: TERRORISM AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN CANADA","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Terrorism; Administration (probate law); Political science; Criminology; Economic Justice; Administration of justice; Law; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Reviewed byDave Steele","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01952553889129878,"gpt":0.2804252175933932,"spread":0.2608996787020945,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003244534,0.0005259023,0.000701656,0.003954367,0.01636876,0.01042301,0.002148812,0.004593366,0.005652407],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008525793,0.0004349677,0.0005537001,0.008597244,0.006203273,0.002034183,0.002144417,0.005762836,0.0002935581],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1666719,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.4527505,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9977739,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.999106,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9958838,0.0004662147,0.0001361209,0.0002258287,0.001526419,0.001761576],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9930881,0.0009814412,0.000357973,0.0001048192,0.004169175,0.00129852],"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":[0.0002515975,0.0001059792,0.01741842,0.002830548,0.0002069933,0.001115928,0.01459086,0.00255933,0.0005638985,0.4311852,0.4008903,0.128281],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006830239,0.00003306585,0.05279386,0.002635915,0.0002402399,0.0001433516,0.02217779,0.0006536766,0.0002751161,0.01346246,0.9073676,0.0001485099],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.07168145,0.4004621,0.0005110458,0.3076347,0.006113548,0.0001408145,0.001352907,0.00006743946,0.212036],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6357617,0.229735,0.00106326,0.05328799,0.001516322,0.0000825544,0.0005011999,0.00008652123,0.07796538],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1666719,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9665424,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948013211","doi":"","title":"SECONDARY RESEARCH USE OF BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES AND DATA IN QUEBEC","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Ethics in Clinical Research","field":"Medicine","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Dignity; Biological materials; Biological data; Internet privacy; Medicine; Data science; Computer science; Political science; Biology; Law; Bioinformatics","authors":[{"name":"Clementine SalleeandBarthaMaria Knoppers","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.8836934945689816,"gpt":0.6250013745908949,"spread":0.2586921199780867,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["research_integrity"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.06222594,0.0002556942,0.0006731604,0.003075004,0.00909358,0.007150297,0.002285222,0.002033368,0.005190156],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07343219,0.0004332303,0.0004178384,0.006296256,0.004924031,0.001351391,0.002089347,0.001942642,0.0003617157],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08595251,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2504075,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9673849,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9781777,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9497013,0.0269861,0.003302326,0.002627933,0.01324109,0.004141234],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.7835588,0.1006866,0.01423166,0.01017216,0.08080335,0.01054732],"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":[0.0006904012,0.0002112789,0.07705432,0.004242215,0.0002393027,0.003458475,0.04142565,0.001182252,0.003366106,0.3455459,0.3129222,0.2096619],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001444147,0.0002332577,0.1570351,0.003616567,0.0001442503,0.0006878442,0.0123792,0.0013912,0.00194831,0.007103641,0.8151724,0.0001439207],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1797776,0.05923457,0.02110805,0.3718926,0.004010669,0.005007976,0.01465899,0.0003598031,0.3439497],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.843953,0.01489034,0.01094043,0.05337862,0.0005775783,0.001584165,0.002212749,0.00007542653,0.07238773],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9979666,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.623632,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2804180676","doi":"","title":"THE MEANING OF “RELIGION” AND THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN THE ADJUDICATION OF RELIGIOUS MATTERS: AN ENGLISH AND CANADIAN COMPARISON","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Adjudication; Supreme court; Meaning (existential); Law; Political science; Context (archaeology); Sociology; Philosophy; Epistemology; History","authors":[{"name":"M.H. Ogilvie","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0196011765569384,"gpt":0.2826797714599633,"spread":0.2630785949030249,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007762273,0.0004123525,0.0006935301,0.007680986,0.02029854,0.01075407,0.002440924,0.002381743,0.006768757],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02015294,0.0005246821,0.0005686675,0.01131629,0.01438674,0.002592498,0.002974047,0.004013372,0.0004452343],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.162403,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.127311,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9949836,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9984439,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9843009,0.002211101,0.0004585006,0.0007356589,0.008076686,0.004217041],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9806418,0.004789217,0.0009842792,0.0004080251,0.01172199,0.001454668],"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":[0.0002086145,0.00006255403,0.01308695,0.0008082319,0.00008516188,0.0008842907,0.06725501,0.0005485002,0.0008738234,0.7928898,0.0537086,0.06958845],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008800538,0.00005767996,0.09980809,0.0023455,0.0002723978,0.0004638843,0.0625959,0.0004557735,0.000852374,0.0204028,0.8123752,0.0002823675],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1382585,0.1027502,0.001332057,0.08248615,0.00105778,0.00007944251,0.001013447,0.00004674208,0.6729757],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8935115,0.05748243,0.001364493,0.01188893,0.0002410119,0.00004225772,0.0003192359,0.00007880061,0.03507135],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.162403,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9714937,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2921568760","doi":"","title":"JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN PRIVATE LAW","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Political science; Tort; Private law; Precedent; Common law; Charter; Public law; Liability","authors":[{"name":"Lewis N. Klar","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05153162255621913,"gpt":0.3382382600379025,"spread":0.2867066374816834,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02039021,0.0002650283,0.0006277311,0.002998453,0.01377766,0.01401925,0.001364866,0.009746666,0.006341989],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02808913,0.0004719392,0.0004553645,0.002029169,0.03261781,0.004190207,0.006519318,0.009972128,0.0004986616],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02313353,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04070853,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1760913,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2640656,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9800043,0.006878695,0.0004268468,0.002148859,0.006451025,0.004090327],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9772272,0.01484803,0.001322297,0.001335661,0.003145278,0.002121525],"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":[0.000005088467,0.00001585444,0.000371048,0.00003872278,0.000006282561,0.00005903376,0.003138426,0.0001054717,0.0001440803,0.9639999,0.02109744,0.01101853],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004820584,0.0000205944,0.003599374,0.0005738262,0.00002279184,0.00007036206,0.003463089,0.0005219575,0.0005071651,0.4361805,0.554964,0.00002813756],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","genre_scores_codex":[0.03204136,0.01896897,0.004067741,0.2291276,0.001067668,0.00008920558,0.00006840059,0.00004298797,0.714526],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8939887,0.006654456,0.001381465,0.04293698,0.001978441,0.00009947553,0.00005951239,0.00003910369,0.05286191],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1760913,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3501328,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2902851948","doi":"","title":"ADEQUACY OF REASONS – FROM PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS TO SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW: NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR NURSES’ UNION V NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR (TREASURY BOARD)","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Treasury; Geography; Political science; Law","authors":[{"name":"Neil G Wilson","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03199779645946033,"gpt":0.3427881226064481,"spread":0.3107903261469878,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.2581261,0.001091246,0.002425896,0.005404849,0.03065803,0.03111507,0.01062167,0.05524292,0.004237948],"category_scores_gemma":[0.4517671,0.002961779,0.002172247,0.00487539,0.04914698,0.01366673,0.01033222,0.04338418,0.0008659541],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1259019,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3661827,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.877607,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9480847,"domain_scores_codex":[0.6785396,0.1484552,0.02134119,0.02161418,0.0838086,0.04624118],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.5244159,0.3336263,0.02012177,0.02221339,0.07966523,0.0199574],"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":[0.0002013751,0.00006478839,0.004981724,0.0004123493,0.0003257356,0.0005573242,0.009061158,0.0006140759,0.0002923161,0.6346661,0.3295546,0.0192684],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000953352,0.0001576645,0.03062553,0.006173604,0.001141106,0.000581108,0.01188549,0.002264972,0.001567752,0.3091615,0.6344662,0.001021707],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01365944,0.008479421,0.004213357,0.8798677,0.002553533,0.0003150499,0.0002513271,0.00008034284,0.09057973],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.3925348,0.003825903,0.01027285,0.5580897,0.002939739,0.0006718693,0.0002124917,0.0001390931,0.03131354],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2581261,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9148626,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2889951601","doi":"","title":"Divulgation de l’information génétique en assurances","year":2015,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Biomedical Ethics and Regulation","field":"Medicine","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Context (archaeology); Genetic testing; Actuarial science; Business; Scope (computer science); Duty; Personally identifiable information; Insurance policy; Legislator; Political science; Legislation; Law; Medicine; Computer science","authors":[{"name":"Shahad Salman","is_ca":false},{"name":"Ida Ngueng Feze","is_ca":false},{"name":"Yann Joly","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03364302993294873,"gpt":0.309299732202726,"spread":0.2756567022697773,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04936478,0.0007231192,0.001235174,0.003044868,0.007995419,0.01123563,0.003696892,0.0185382,0.004809933],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05473767,0.0007507678,0.001226544,0.00207145,0.04324324,0.005688391,0.004016803,0.01660611,0.001431937],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0507027,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07427303,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6034579,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4692628,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9266706,0.0270399,0.002797007,0.004935905,0.03315928,0.005397227],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9285327,0.0380819,0.002948154,0.005875924,0.02201468,0.002546823],"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":[0.000011951,0.00001129322,0.0004310298,0.000102585,0.00001537613,0.0002277026,0.002556851,0.0002007796,0.0003188334,0.9471676,0.0350412,0.01391477],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002633129,0.00002675914,0.001818455,0.001057717,0.00002963642,0.0003713804,0.0009178781,0.0005211953,0.0005209224,0.09252031,0.9021071,0.00008232614],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.008499008,0.05058395,0.01947409,0.5373622,0.005611777,0.0001687651,0.0002780386,0.0001954327,0.3778268],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5273432,0.03733429,0.02485082,0.2951571,0.006407179,0.0003013163,0.0002204483,0.0001990933,0.1081866],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9492973,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7977548,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2903296248","doi":"","title":"SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Privilege (computing); Conflict of laws; Law; Supreme court; Context (archaeology); Political science; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Brandon Kain","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04445663548282397,"gpt":0.3196415932945086,"spread":0.2751849578116847,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01209751,0.0002448567,0.0005088646,0.003708461,0.01071799,0.01224992,0.002152692,0.004599475,0.004593288],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02771085,0.0003411957,0.0004591509,0.004032882,0.02259071,0.003704776,0.003138757,0.005104611,0.0002855068],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05484828,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1082484,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8297287,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9121794,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9782219,0.004675542,0.0008773528,0.001220623,0.01075786,0.004246655],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9810711,0.009084363,0.001869955,0.0006213812,0.005953405,0.001399917],"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":[0.000005036511,0.000004962954,0.0009135647,0.00009519725,0.000006883818,0.0001495749,0.002148091,0.00008798909,0.00007638984,0.9743994,0.01058937,0.01152345],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002374411,0.00002768499,0.01526843,0.002760909,0.00008375266,0.0005020528,0.009851588,0.0004910423,0.0003963909,0.2396326,0.7308607,0.0001012132],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.04108323,0.1322716,0.005959866,0.1531855,0.001645565,0.00009425458,0.0002212442,0.00005475723,0.665484],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8969737,0.04035696,0.002588702,0.03061411,0.0006477584,0.00005267231,0.00009319153,0.00002773103,0.02864517],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1702713,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.397954,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2790497960","doi":"","title":"WHAT CHANGES DID GRASSY NARROWS FIRST NATION MAKE TO FEDERALISM AND OTHER DOCTRINES","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Environmental law and policy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Treaty; Doctrine; Law; Political science; Supreme court; Context (archaeology); Interpretation (philosophy); Federalism; Enforcement; Constitutional law; Law and economics; Sociology; History; Philosophy; Politics","authors":[{"name":"HW Roger Townshend","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08378179179671509,"gpt":0.3349114565798317,"spread":0.2511296647831167,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009442501,0.0002293689,0.0006435654,0.002232089,0.007960556,0.008470372,0.002079174,0.00605652,0.003947936],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01572669,0.0003331784,0.0007341086,0.001848744,0.02074959,0.006758376,0.001166921,0.007936988,0.0004322403],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06657266,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05900818,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8613986,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8921301,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9921207,0.001611096,0.0001856228,0.0009273037,0.002974999,0.002180395],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9916775,0.002913808,0.0005701414,0.000493623,0.003670803,0.000674129],"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":[0.00001044295,0.000009168917,0.0004030561,0.0001042055,0.00001308234,0.00005893584,0.001582698,0.0001046293,0.0000794193,0.9536264,0.03018196,0.01382599],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003291435,0.00002822675,0.006023837,0.001410936,0.00005318513,0.00009258408,0.003655656,0.0002548167,0.0002650064,0.1874412,0.8006604,0.00008128068],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01677674,0.09374682,0.001772753,0.6343637,0.004744017,0.00003019591,0.0001808652,0.00003595698,0.248349],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6337021,0.06732604,0.003039327,0.2191793,0.005198716,0.00006296117,0.0001709172,0.00009324673,0.0712275],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9334273,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4830207,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2905008473","doi":"","title":"OVERVIEW OF THE LAW OF BIDDING AND TENDERING","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Call for bids; Bidding; Mistake; Procurement; Business; Supreme court; Duty; Construction contract; Law and economics; Law; Contract management; Economics; Political science; Marketing","authors":[{"name":"Robert Pattison","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.09645502507909347,"gpt":0.3461813206098935,"spread":0.2497262955308001,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00365032,0.0007554726,0.0007275874,0.007936522,0.005504179,0.008987764,0.00205425,0.003782127,0.00843502],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004760438,0.0008780111,0.0006377487,0.01075607,0.01115473,0.004269764,0.001344834,0.004760723,0.001997974],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05065469,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04593318,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6980315,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6218449,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9938169,0.0009037403,0.0002300201,0.0004196267,0.003895583,0.000734016],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9975374,0.0008263934,0.0001679174,0.0001285383,0.001160442,0.0001793156],"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":[0.000003631846,0.00001281953,0.0001675488,0.0001971913,0.000003143358,0.00005584215,0.0003030125,0.0004817412,0.00006425002,0.948477,0.02739029,0.02284364],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000004013183,0.00001149185,0.001404774,0.000721456,0.000006529258,0.00009719567,0.0002161165,0.0006011563,0.00007283584,0.177736,0.8191007,0.00002786225],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.002510988,0.3051815,0.01630363,0.03354262,0.001069708,0.0001659122,0.0006699652,0.0001143011,0.6404414],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.1841891,0.5903583,0.02150151,0.01995364,0.004750547,0.0004033404,0.001022558,0.0001778602,0.1776432],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.3019685,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6074936,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2936389928","doi":"","title":"“EXISTING” ABORIGINAL RIGHTS IN SECTION 35 OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Indigenous rights; Political science; Fundamental rights; Constitution; Common law; Indigenous; Reservation of rights; International human rights law; Right to property; Section (typography); Linguistic rights; Human rights; Ex post facto law; Business","authors":[{"name":"Richard Ogden","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02214455332319331,"gpt":0.3165354026948856,"spread":0.2943908493716922,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002400376,0.000269915,0.0003222758,0.001369632,0.009681283,0.004250658,0.001107298,0.003383312,0.004592769],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004741886,0.0004679472,0.0003080002,0.001695256,0.005370212,0.001193234,0.001290576,0.003600189,0.0009425136],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02576573,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.067302,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9083101,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9485909,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9954419,0.0004562448,0.0001703638,0.0003625488,0.00232688,0.00124192],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9978309,0.0006460312,0.00009809556,0.0001059984,0.001182385,0.0001365646],"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":[0.00002510453,0.00002435271,0.001890233,0.000188236,0.0000120233,0.0004572324,0.01713176,0.0002256359,0.001088164,0.8043248,0.1514004,0.02323202],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008698029,0.00001748609,0.01431597,0.0002977215,0.00002116487,0.00008685418,0.002397462,0.0000793804,0.0002968353,0.01001366,0.9724204,0.00004434255],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.03434734,0.02052549,0.001396074,0.03332673,0.001477066,0.0001404689,0.0009005279,0.00009505108,0.9077913],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4103903,0.01714372,0.004096271,0.03471155,0.0006143758,0.0002413245,0.001285558,0.00006460743,0.5314524],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.09168988,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1869444,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2952440936","doi":"","title":"LE RECOUVREMENT ET L’INDEMNISATION DES MEMBRES DANS L’ACTION COLLECTIVE","year":2016,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Class action; Damages; Civil procedure; Class (philosophy); Action (physics); Collective action; Political science; Business; Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science; Law; Artificial intelligence","authors":[{"name":"Me Catherine Piché","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08944713779012117,"gpt":0.247239512080536,"spread":0.1577923742904149,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01221391,0.0004634899,0.0004651271,0.001479343,0.01264999,0.007564898,0.00251147,0.005659348,0.01163608],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04064139,0.0004065682,0.0006694031,0.0008764911,0.01570277,0.005008481,0.008530322,0.006199829,0.002587476],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007642312,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01141025,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04640067,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07866663,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9834757,0.005867775,0.0005004857,0.001675774,0.005241652,0.00323859],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9892173,0.003720533,0.002882497,0.001124815,0.00138403,0.0016708],"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":[0.00007880592,0.0001333548,0.02220497,0.0001999772,0.00005477431,0.003403948,0.2944176,0.0007530812,0.002803798,0.5235723,0.02416359,0.1282138],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000209327,0.0002525678,0.03090557,0.0007743806,0.0000392039,0.001982133,0.1687291,0.0007979741,0.001812465,0.03012129,0.7643932,0.0001712447],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.5065356,0.004869149,0.03770653,0.09277105,0.002132548,0.0003954468,0.0001159152,0.0002265491,0.3552472],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8582416,0.001071505,0.004208591,0.003354895,0.0005451635,0.0001840144,0.00004057136,0.00006331076,0.1322903],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9923577,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.0922612,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}