{"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"},"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002175402,0.0002637422,0.0004558682,0.00001792311,0.001473889,0.0001253153,0.0005425964,0.0001495471,0.003050312],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006968681,0.0002034718,0.0001689636,0.0004816373,0.0007163199,0.0002093491,0.0000305605,0.0004339948,0.0002648307],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.003069593,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003634833,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9985377,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999371,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9963938,0.001825205,0.000339383,0.0002672572,0.0005130814,0.000661288],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982842,0.0005190374,0.0001433045,0.0002388978,0.0001577061,0.0006568783],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000001746382,0.00002409741,0.001573726,0.0006609399,0.0001412321,0.0003787738,0.005885087,0.000007154692,5.113518e-7,0.3528172,0.5996364,0.03887312],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001074473,0.00001021592,0.01108135,0.00144289,0.0001777069,0.00008401577,0.0008240855,0.000009481872,1.467241e-7,0.0004891798,0.9855016,0.0002719035],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01104483,0.233041,0.000001219256,0.5114233,0.000921969,0.0007948652,0.0001705836,0.00002697064,0.2425753],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6403441,0.3370778,0.000008204148,0.01437116,0.0006078625,0.00004248113,0.00002041567,0.00001925073,0.007508729],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6292993,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998261,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009042087,0.0001299567,0.0002493623,0.0000123434,0.003814529,0.0001435078,0.0002760829,0.00008359834,0.0001478259],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000178823,0.00007002367,0.00004423684,0.0001537011,0.003008918,0.00011211,0.00002912122,0.0002423202,0.00003838795],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003825329,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004971377,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.989638,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9996774,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9987667,0.0003057374,0.0001462895,0.0001496632,0.0002009281,0.0004307053],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989689,0.0002035703,0.00004384549,0.0001472628,0.00007660873,0.000559793],"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":[8.171899e-7,0.00000176443,0.05565234,0.00007828718,0.00008577967,0.00002122713,0.005411149,2.593829e-7,2.25052e-7,0.8771867,0.05104803,0.01051345],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004564429,0.000004217931,0.03844628,0.0002082025,0.00007073038,0.000007570272,0.0002875736,3.769526e-7,7.795072e-8,0.001058125,0.9597644,0.0001067794],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01022783,0.223398,3.145939e-7,0.6208518,0.0001906301,0.00122759,0.0002140219,0.00002631233,0.1438635],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9284407,0.05871749,0.000008995065,0.01200803,0.0003201556,0.0000197939,0.00002023759,0.000004196282,0.0004604238],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9182128,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997043,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007675726,0.0001290474,0.000505296,0.00004304134,0.0003127223,0.000007134684,0.0004772976,0.0000831482,0.0009112232],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0172337,0.00007301963,0.00004343914,0.0004044043,0.0001183998,0.0000896987,0.00003866648,0.0009426484,0.00004470506],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001484829,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008299906,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9989554,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9997776,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9948376,0.003234699,0.0008759651,0.0002166693,0.0002857099,0.0005493137],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9939887,0.00449782,0.0002477793,0.0008604412,0.0001119253,0.0002933573],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001281994,0.00007998336,0.6714703,0.01801636,0.00002271137,0.00003985447,0.008089709,0.00006174602,0.00001798613,0.007509276,0.1500491,0.1446301],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001498206,0.000009228844,0.1738913,0.009947057,0.00001822444,0.000001188886,0.001790879,0.0004349174,0.000001462293,0.0002913833,0.8133499,0.0001146043],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1870658,0.04198324,0.00001221339,0.7364254,0.0005995613,0.0029175,0.00001231801,0.00001560503,0.03096833],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9607731,0.003000329,0.00007607912,0.03580623,0.00010226,0.0001231695,0.000003779554,0.00001318751,0.0001019044],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7737072,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9977255,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003466349,0.0001465906,0.0002745438,0.00005209909,0.0002466461,0.00002156131,0.0002793644,0.00009266991,0.002339317],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007266659,0.00008130506,0.0001222286,0.0001904044,0.0000361684,0.00001537536,0.000003978626,0.0001509567,0.003364038],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003321892,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004671382,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1068322,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1707861,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9986516,0.0002962537,0.0002720897,0.0002223916,0.0001141782,0.0004434474],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986095,0.00009275855,0.000057208,0.0007052307,0.00003773151,0.0004975414],"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":[0.000005360028,0.00002153187,0.00001032743,0.00002307424,0.00004235039,0.0008704829,0.0004077043,2.301636e-7,7.133689e-7,0.00432402,0.03711738,0.9571768],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001558278,0.0001620153,0.004192864,0.0004025451,0.00005187236,0.0005557197,0.00002293743,0.000001861971,4.829178e-7,0.0007496969,0.9935954,0.0001087542],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03349387,0.3691761,0.00001505403,0.3914544,0.001281033,0.00239306,0.00009779765,0.0001360242,0.2019527],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9231902,0.0217598,0.00007583085,0.04434385,0.0002398333,0.00005291477,0.0000253307,0.00002471196,0.01028752],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9570681,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9985727,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001828162,0.0001005383,0.0002276929,0.000008867374,0.004314152,0.00005535091,0.0004525539,0.00002387666,0.00006552551],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003140187,0.00003842131,0.00006018744,0.0002402969,0.001151349,0.0000487193,0.00004005357,0.0001231707,0.000005928152],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003630835,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006850394,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9961291,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998258,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9985185,0.000402645,0.0001778495,0.0001009541,0.0003374007,0.0004626359],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990836,0.0003383107,0.00009057298,0.0002084688,0.00009499086,0.0001840348],"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":[0.00001299455,0.000006597874,0.001122726,0.0002455165,0.0002689714,0.00002680949,0.04862254,0.00000340455,0.000001463469,0.6355274,0.2854444,0.02871716],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008535926,0.000002118189,0.001757647,0.000272604,0.00005802733,0.000001667277,0.005212892,0.000006040193,3.593935e-7,0.0005183895,0.992012,0.0000728726],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02435975,0.3206354,5.905222e-7,0.6014328,0.0003610851,0.001455207,0.00002198241,0.00001167054,0.05172151],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8736034,0.1174151,0.000003552268,0.003734304,0.0001786352,0.0000401026,0.000001095314,0.000006049333,0.005017709],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8492436,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9969821,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009113231,0.00004122487,0.0001117406,0.000003767652,0.0008005129,0.00005699739,0.0001447016,0.00002286382,0.0002881342],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001211716,0.00002217728,0.00003323042,0.00006293027,0.000193195,0.00004734174,0.000003362691,0.00004702955,0.0000276766],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007256705,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002470941,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8156655,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9162502,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992509,0.0002152836,0.0001314699,0.00005981118,0.0001503516,0.0001921628],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995815,0.00006961967,0.00003491983,0.0001267236,0.00003042953,0.0001567682],"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":[5.416972e-7,0.000001160028,0.00004660263,0.00006122473,0.000009144345,6.306191e-7,0.0006196921,8.161527e-7,6.409462e-7,0.941862,0.02170512,0.03569242],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001908281,0.000002859496,0.0008816395,0.0001797325,0.00001356409,8.801329e-7,0.00002020954,0.00001742496,9.825121e-7,0.002685443,0.9961459,0.00003224779],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02323518,0.3482653,0.000004127426,0.3580912,0.0001652011,0.001163271,0.00005999427,0.00001490344,0.2690009],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8710325,0.1142165,0.000007192501,0.004394886,0.00009301803,0.0000152085,8.428306e-7,0.000004432643,0.01023545],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9744408,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6156979,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00292299,0.0001218224,0.0001764131,0.00006632409,0.002288065,0.0001194254,0.0005885079,0.00005155126,0.0004599006],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004534558,0.00007373965,0.0001559069,0.0006832712,0.0002525302,0.00009392502,0.00003256142,0.0002829377,0.0001077648],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004517096,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000909175,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6981174,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9885372,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9984076,0.0002432855,0.000246321,0.0001890729,0.0003846645,0.0005290702],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987709,0.0002530421,0.00009446149,0.0004007237,0.0001450289,0.0003358498],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002484328,0.00006870973,0.001063044,0.001804747,0.0002652659,0.0001369209,0.208457,0.0001473016,0.00001834746,0.09449883,0.007789002,0.685726],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000406656,0.00001754961,0.0009419487,0.0006758338,0.005080009,0.00002063768,0.6087703,0.00005104781,0.000004733568,0.00004794052,0.3841265,0.0002228149],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.5479135,0.1407559,0.005164179,0.176073,0.003263541,0.003348874,0.00006016591,0.0002490526,0.1231719],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9646461,0.01308246,0.00003687381,0.0211299,0.0003468714,0.00001076787,0.000004163755,0.00001057426,0.0007322989],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.6855032,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9990108,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00122438,0.000046573,0.0001231968,0.000009662333,0.0006912799,0.0000303009,0.0005187894,0.00001356113,0.0004852037],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001315724,0.00002051621,0.00004721258,0.00003991388,0.0007526719,0.00003784491,0.00001525607,0.0000593048,0.000002920666],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012471,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001002773,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9892798,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998363,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9991195,0.0001952964,0.000176178,0.00005427014,0.0003246749,0.0001300755],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992486,0.0002712603,0.00009296216,0.0001393587,0.0001766874,0.00007115692],"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":[0.000002520997,9.005845e-7,0.00002921501,0.00001052508,0.00003359424,9.596915e-7,0.0002293677,2.907107e-7,1.401698e-7,0.9922267,0.007283419,0.0001823575],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006049239,0.000002044407,0.0002941816,0.0001165621,0.00002789153,0.000002368896,0.00004616382,0.000003432341,0.000002985563,0.03047515,0.9689409,0.00002786323],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.0107002,0.03958133,8.532967e-7,0.2481882,0.0005573735,0.0006276663,0.00007352338,0.000004375158,0.7002664],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9735974,0.01339347,0.000003512896,0.00471004,0.00008991819,0.000008059488,0.000002079903,0.000003299841,0.008192231],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9628972,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5316836,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005705652,0.0001947876,0.0003002367,0.0001437229,0.002963431,0.0002804629,0.00133667,0.0001621954,0.0006825392],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006541572,0.0001280171,0.00008145558,0.0008917862,0.001146182,0.0002048752,0.00004156052,0.0004968671,0.002175329],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.002088527,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005673518,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9028476,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9693475,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9968349,0.001031901,0.0003006159,0.0003148477,0.0003566476,0.001161048],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980763,0.0002118601,0.0000926557,0.000764342,0.0002196008,0.0006352412],"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":[0.00003244264,0.00002306183,0.005678034,0.0009617142,0.0001060804,0.0001829074,0.02054403,0.00002414058,0.000143582,0.8266925,0.01581003,0.1298015],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007178604,0.00002367743,0.007301374,0.002410612,0.00003487375,0.000007320842,0.004538097,0.00002010377,0.000006046491,0.001378207,0.9839386,0.0002692617],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.3351053,0.05393936,0.000002007353,0.06726162,0.000812304,0.002889135,0.0001071468,0.000171282,0.5397118],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.965709,0.007579609,0.00002563126,0.02544338,0.00004718288,0.00009617761,0.000004915293,0.00001692541,0.001077218],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9681286,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999634,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001617681,0.0001174045,0.0002522192,0.00002368377,0.001724444,0.00009495249,0.000316354,0.00008344899,0.0003135781],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001074777,0.00007401856,0.00005477783,0.0002037814,0.0005972137,0.0001406102,0.00004410049,0.0002014569,0.00008860394],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001626964,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006633771,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6917705,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7468578,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9983073,0.0006388316,0.0001853776,0.0001797604,0.0003475608,0.0003411372],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991895,0.0001535961,0.0000784744,0.0001596785,0.0001118376,0.0003068903],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001352577,0.0000522063,0.09157014,0.001687976,0.0005346527,0.0004372592,0.06996105,0.000001543714,0.00002403968,0.1576515,0.504116,0.1738284],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007163872,0.000009199016,0.0204327,0.0003738872,0.00003501086,0.000004136496,0.0006302243,5.533592e-7,8.378668e-7,0.0005322024,0.9777893,0.0001202732],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03531701,0.6343788,8.365037e-7,0.1927621,0.0003115684,0.001915685,0.00003012095,0.00007762157,0.1352062],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8721854,0.117805,0.00001568514,0.004937846,0.0002559992,0.0000444664,0.000001953889,0.000008239568,0.004745384],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8368684,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995752,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008848052,0.00005155682,0.0001650525,0.00002258177,0.001135366,0.0000619893,0.000385151,0.000015481,0.0001459883],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003505911,0.00003174604,0.00003919958,0.0001475192,0.0001197793,0.00005917746,0.00001388781,0.00009745586,0.000002973728],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003799381,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004831282,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9999755,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999996,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992526,0.0001595579,0.0001457542,0.00008592485,0.0001724996,0.0001836233],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993149,0.00009615351,0.0001054998,0.0003112792,0.00005724409,0.0001149101],"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":[0.0002144268,0.00003530329,0.102147,0.001820849,0.0001862044,0.0000794428,0.05039532,0.00004269878,0.000004837491,0.03834317,0.02774793,0.7789829],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0008196586,0.0000268183,0.05153356,0.00146873,0.0007289441,0.000007939417,0.06928482,0.0001216753,0.00000172588,0.0001261679,0.8756641,0.0002158708],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9417787,0.02006798,0.000001860883,0.03278488,0.0003563277,0.0005440323,0.00001143391,0.000002446154,0.004452358],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9675789,0.03145886,0.000003074357,0.0006317885,0.000105099,0.00001399669,5.673112e-7,0.000002696014,0.0002050073],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8479162,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8732432,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002458375,0.00006203996,0.0002061031,0.000005374791,0.0002829563,0.000008922979,0.0001685218,0.00007281511,0.0001648838],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004035276,0.00004261781,0.00003863958,0.000280168,0.0002453177,0.00003640343,0.000003540347,0.0001279062,0.000001304921],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001719814,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002365367,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9988097,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999421,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992834,0.00009556103,0.0001844215,0.00007826281,0.0001568457,0.0002014469],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995292,0.00001575172,0.00008463344,0.0001028172,0.00004814419,0.0002194337],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00000380392,0.00002638225,0.007566282,0.000270438,0.00007047679,0.00001803138,0.09230849,0.000002944854,0.00001716306,0.2470101,0.6383361,0.01436982],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008779013,0.00001483129,0.009120563,0.0004461469,0.00004760403,0.000005247323,0.0004107928,3.769765e-8,0.000008934486,0.009319921,0.9804602,0.00007789642],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.5959647,0.2303437,8.229456e-7,0.1101165,0.0007749048,0.003881561,0.0004379836,0.00003018089,0.05844964],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9569908,0.02968961,0.0001053231,0.002394819,0.0001721106,0.000004324203,0.000009215158,0.000003562913,0.01063021],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.3610261,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.419606,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001229571,0.00006343749,0.0001597948,0.00003363367,0.0004640778,0.00005040351,0.0002468752,0.00003707405,0.0003140756],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001694665,0.00004672879,0.00003516136,0.0001886116,0.0004102519,0.0001890948,0.0000211327,0.0000601293,0.00001164971],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001217853,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003235528,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2890455,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.709327,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9989837,0.000350418,0.0001651979,0.0001106854,0.0002139306,0.0001760932],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993907,0.00003450321,0.00006229575,0.000153767,0.00009703885,0.0002617037],"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":[8.769368e-7,0.000009800529,0.0001003932,0.0001378001,0.000004929879,0.000001084389,0.01500987,6.854603e-8,2.430435e-7,0.943992,0.001056439,0.03968653],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001104988,0.00002909243,0.003282849,0.000263626,0.00006375459,0.000005343713,0.008529433,0.00001083573,6.318761e-7,0.009270017,0.9783024,0.0001315346],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.006798824,0.0129004,0.00007792794,0.09508502,0.0001006123,0.0007286444,0.00002176894,0.00002217093,0.8842646],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9823766,0.01172564,0.00004369603,0.004340995,0.00006801505,0.00001446879,0.00001668288,0.000005031437,0.001408914],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9772459,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7156888,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003701643,0.00008900189,0.0001781665,0.00004531787,0.00126747,0.00009523459,0.0002609863,0.00003260523,0.0002368825],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001049124,0.00005486367,0.00003116251,0.0003602266,0.0009310785,0.00006355216,0.00002052762,0.0001168714,0.00006453633],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003962086,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003584854,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6885964,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9408703,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9986334,0.0002923289,0.0002389686,0.0001433752,0.0002713623,0.000420512],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987283,0.0002823239,0.00007706178,0.000228769,0.0001451707,0.0005383558],"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":[0.000002748026,0.000001593763,0.000247887,0.00002544576,0.00000805972,0.000002869158,0.001977453,4.175859e-7,2.123363e-7,0.9631032,0.01556531,0.01906482],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007581117,0.00001160182,0.0004574682,0.00006384501,0.00002706123,0.000004563524,0.0008396853,5.927622e-7,6.625439e-7,0.001078498,0.9973541,0.00008606083],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.07427783,0.03565156,0.00009354897,0.6151449,0.0006674555,0.003171645,0.0002310718,0.00006770589,0.2706943],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9165441,0.01161192,0.0000586659,0.06426399,0.0003843764,0.00002459039,0.0000181012,0.00001038155,0.007083879],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9817888,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9748484,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001156988,0.00004871688,0.0001000074,0.00002856153,0.0001851656,0.00003538954,0.0001888427,0.0000250666,0.001147259],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006356918,0.0000378116,0.00003444639,0.0002116166,0.00007847295,0.00009850667,0.00000349736,0.00009488688,0.0003856833],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003379327,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002378567,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6208872,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9789042,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9991208,0.0003255977,0.0001216243,0.00008816263,0.000119643,0.0002241424],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995099,0.00006359265,0.00002791431,0.0001374482,0.00002324761,0.0002379401],"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":[0.000001643329,0.000003984306,0.0005229181,0.0002320944,0.000003718375,0.00001554385,0.007903687,0.000002014394,0.000001039339,0.7957432,0.1170384,0.07853177],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002063165,0.000004092229,0.0003028916,0.0008333555,0.00001055999,0.000001120155,0.0002336482,0.000001214893,6.203393e-7,0.002222062,0.9963182,0.0000516716],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.001552382,0.2794363,0.00003858565,0.1167031,0.000434495,0.0009901088,0.000003400437,0.00002488645,0.6008168],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8981758,0.06925629,0.0001232518,0.01805774,0.00009287943,0.00001648554,0.000001967375,0.00001066981,0.01426488],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8966234,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997658,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.001067023,0.000117766,0.0002442021,0.00001708496,0.0015311,0.0000882132,0.0004677117,0.00005492604,0.00256338],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007346587,0.00007550416,0.0001108961,0.0002887126,0.0002636849,0.0001022313,0.00003739621,0.0001634309,0.0008340395],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0007158311,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003069923,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7596118,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9003747,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9985714,0.0003099666,0.0001773509,0.0001599124,0.000277465,0.0005039112],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992068,0.00008953045,0.00005891965,0.000202947,0.00007209348,0.0003696907],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000002921229,0.00001748061,0.007996794,0.000774428,0.0001740993,0.0001460425,0.05671327,0.000002971001,0.000007525781,0.1222055,0.4424449,0.3695141],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003382302,0.000003475116,0.002526123,0.000336508,0.00003317887,0.000002112993,0.001271339,0.000001155642,4.335523e-7,0.0002837913,0.9953863,0.0001217518],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.004391948,0.2144951,0.000002954102,0.4213625,0.0004435564,0.001352936,0.00001494066,0.00009870088,0.3578374],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5688399,0.3542014,0.0001384195,0.03554784,0.0009932608,0.0001009871,0.000007105315,0.00002805037,0.04014307],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5644479,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999439,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001364989,0.0000376056,0.00007018953,0.00001703596,0.0005127171,0.00003692578,0.000156944,0.00001630889,0.001655803],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006164683,0.00002921848,0.00001255323,0.0004299937,0.0000471856,0.0002586584,0.000004680812,0.0001696298,0.0001041146],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001286295,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009541536,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9999549,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999976,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9991912,0.0002187905,0.0001345303,0.00004487367,0.0001353406,0.0002753088],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994305,0.000118962,0.00005017512,0.0001389365,0.0000449342,0.0002164407],"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":[8.756496e-8,0.000002148645,0.00402523,0.00003465507,0.000002175245,4.484646e-7,0.002339531,4.615531e-7,1.139771e-7,0.9097788,0.07518537,0.008630968],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001086727,3.233582e-7,0.004118317,0.0001314911,0.000004871896,8.62808e-7,0.0005831033,6.344553e-7,3.62882e-7,0.0001928423,0.994913,0.00004327778],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.001911206,0.01859541,1.905426e-7,0.4997611,0.0004578657,0.0002702505,0.000003997399,0.000005397752,0.4789945],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9496097,0.001404559,0.00002746658,0.04719535,0.0001696733,0.0000159888,0.000003533199,0.000003855777,0.001569857],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9476985,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992568,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008231547,0.0001074531,0.0001660859,0.0001552942,0.001224716,0.0001613929,0.0003503658,0.00004463927,0.000439081],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003904434,0.00007118009,0.00008933707,0.0007475403,0.0001239519,0.0002557278,0.00003141669,0.0001765234,0.0004632509],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004304851,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005012777,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9018552,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9980804,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9989896,0.00005484719,0.0002957694,0.0001258489,0.0001461617,0.0003878139],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999148,0.00007099708,0.0001336272,0.0003964932,0.0001576266,0.00009327255],"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":[5.625805e-7,0.000007197133,0.0006295604,0.0001200111,0.000008484083,5.432553e-7,0.000005870908,0.00001674998,0.000003025734,0.9585009,0.0294494,0.01125775],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006991949,0.000001662488,0.02767107,0.0003116263,0.00004194153,0.000002022231,0.0000361143,0.001049984,4.323087e-7,0.0007950741,0.9699364,0.00008378227],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.003242737,0.006994577,0.0001297759,0.3717974,0.0008221047,0.001462411,0.00008826835,0.000053019,0.6154097],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9916248,0.002211025,0.000004882789,0.005275675,0.0001727327,0.00005084552,0.00009580492,0.00001165948,0.0005525149],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9883821,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9419651,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002963526,0.00003916852,0.00008324728,0.000006566704,0.0007847723,0.00002772605,0.0001307175,0.00001026717,0.003615096],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00002625634,0.00002454631,0.00002297414,0.00006560756,0.0001445222,0.00006693468,0.000006811182,0.00003890619,0.0004670216],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002250929,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001471629,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4900151,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9601265,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9995911,0.00006077064,0.00006765604,0.00005804909,0.00009882295,0.0001236012],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9997732,0.00001955082,0.00001236028,0.00005722579,0.00004324937,0.00009440494],"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":[1.900455e-7,4.602554e-7,0.000005907453,0.00001580956,0.000006241489,8.713574e-7,0.001012079,2.677694e-8,1.289065e-7,0.985441,0.007282704,0.006234574],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001056613,0.000003766535,0.0003021626,0.0001521989,0.000007781106,8.092808e-7,0.0001071534,9.7975e-7,0.000001063178,0.0009938808,0.9983833,0.00003634436],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.002809649,0.1352242,1.637162e-8,0.04425891,0.00002730478,0.0001381295,0.000006094202,0.000005712095,0.81753],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7566681,0.2006363,0.000002879415,0.01371965,0.00009868551,0.00001497321,0.000001328778,0.000002571262,0.02885555],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9911006,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9972957,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001278842,0.00004495512,0.00009806343,0.00001139667,0.0006047399,0.00001961246,0.0004028112,0.00001572372,0.000333022],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005186111,0.00002823143,0.00001809627,0.0004438674,0.0001590894,0.00003988951,0.00001039465,0.00008229391,0.00002117326],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000702481,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009816421,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9999307,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999996,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9991782,0.00009513894,0.0001868437,0.00006191384,0.0001997894,0.0002781322],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992291,0.0002148999,0.00004607446,0.0001782772,0.00008613242,0.0002455008],"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":[8.187481e-7,0.000001168546,0.0005120008,0.00008230798,0.000003015592,0.00001069919,0.001328564,0.00000179942,8.030579e-7,0.9176582,0.06427351,0.01612718],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001283219,0.000002182899,0.001855154,0.0003222187,0.00002108474,0.000001576887,0.0009293098,3.791666e-7,0.000004856088,0.0004503264,0.9963604,0.00003964104],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.005581466,0.1928062,0.00001725545,0.5425027,0.0005950235,0.001061618,0.0000147588,0.0000122959,0.2574086],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9746575,0.01649895,0.00001616176,0.007277205,0.00008654655,0.000001731135,0.00000114283,0.000005401733,0.001455401],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.969076,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.995797,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001012073,0.00007170068,0.0001734217,0.000005742667,0.0007795551,0.00001538704,0.0006483883,0.00002371994,0.0003843274],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000201651,0.00003530034,0.00008363234,0.0002291064,0.0004786668,0.00006555191,0.000009595627,0.0001219756,0.000003106571],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002141294,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004023039,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9953101,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999226,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9988438,0.0002710161,0.0002086666,0.00007768365,0.0003383897,0.0002604566],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991837,0.0002028602,0.00009954527,0.0002809529,0.00008961172,0.0001433576],"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":[0.000006878579,0.000009363887,0.0005922536,0.0003845928,0.0000407766,0.000008250639,0.009965897,0.000003311317,0.00003502128,0.9672363,0.0126337,0.00908365],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001805228,0.000009402252,0.0004900015,0.0007113346,0.00007473262,0.000005907232,0.002292955,0.000001206968,0.00008855577,0.0009429925,0.9953131,0.0000517224],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02499578,0.07920714,0.000001227285,0.4594167,0.0002622406,0.001664147,0.00006849332,0.000007234837,0.4343771],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9896713,0.006732416,0.00000183806,0.002834466,0.00003814375,0.00001006797,4.399206e-7,0.000004231713,0.0007070336],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9826794,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7136698,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003995933,0.000060877,0.00009109778,0.00003966561,0.0007257384,0.0002332836,0.0005376062,0.00003111046,0.0003976509],"category_scores_gemma":[0.002574632,0.00003583118,0.00001870485,0.0007854469,0.00006502272,0.0003610243,0.00001362541,0.0003763761,0.00006978221],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0009525517,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04570749,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9956537,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999611,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9981751,0.0009839266,0.0002007966,0.00008732481,0.0002835979,0.0002692818],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990427,0.0001686848,0.00009152263,0.0002573641,0.0001943991,0.0002453309],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[1.523942e-7,0.000004463224,0.0001917992,0.0000207599,0.000002862736,0.000002879691,0.003571443,5.660872e-8,2.016301e-8,0.4892849,0.5028145,0.004106097],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002971327,0.000002257512,0.0003574134,0.0001685806,0.00000837506,0.000005464663,0.004946677,0.000002407928,5.756549e-8,0.0002993578,0.9941262,0.00005346469],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.0008335582,0.00461121,2.499262e-7,0.863606,0.0004760272,0.0004091169,0.00000252902,0.000009681637,0.1300516],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9246861,0.0005973606,0.00003166095,0.07181638,0.0002418777,0.00004762542,0.000006864007,0.000005330668,0.002566757],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9238526,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9597025,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008689046,0.00005072122,0.00009278188,0.00003478345,0.0003578884,0.00009675239,0.0004018111,0.00003291402,0.0002219141],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003164779,0.00003889522,0.00003573587,0.0004478562,0.0001364347,0.0001295243,0.00001812773,0.0001211085,0.0003422428],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001048003,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001864518,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5667517,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9840761,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992847,0.0001061929,0.000141297,0.0001056515,0.0001213928,0.0002406996],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994403,0.00002061894,0.0000378304,0.0001984013,0.00005353578,0.0002493827],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[6.330613e-8,0.000003322301,0.00006300636,0.00002417699,0.000001101755,0.000001427322,0.0004176386,2.887145e-7,6.466582e-7,0.9786804,0.0006703677,0.0201376],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003705795,0.000002856804,0.00214736,0.0005373294,0.00000436594,9.492954e-7,0.00008149026,7.629718e-7,0.000002065238,0.005313714,0.991817,0.00005504285],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.00674565,0.01433163,0.00002313248,0.8418171,0.00007240812,0.0008655096,0.000014472,0.00002513294,0.1361049],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9780143,0.01524947,0.00004426003,0.006285237,0.0000685337,0.00007281263,0.000004902003,0.000004448484,0.0002560078],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9911466,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4398953,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001118108,0.00004574628,0.00007337019,0.00001729749,0.000988145,0.0001148119,0.0002831707,0.0000289187,0.000357126],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001054127,0.00002707851,0.00002628956,0.0001388223,0.0002004331,0.00006182142,0.00001282482,0.0002471572,0.00009837088],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000608564,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004155294,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4438764,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9683876,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994355,0.000116269,0.00009707823,0.00008584918,0.00009029005,0.0001749978],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995548,0.00005837216,0.00002568944,0.0002125095,0.00002434149,0.0001243275],"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":[3.70546e-7,0.000009511089,0.000670073,0.00004467494,0.000004988065,0.000002319489,0.00453389,3.734879e-7,0.000004887541,0.900843,0.08046474,0.0134212],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001958392,0.000002275738,0.00252599,0.00005675984,0.000008113528,0.000003153102,0.0002712695,0.000003755722,1.900417e-7,0.001829051,0.9952403,0.00003953716],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.04990651,0.02052377,0.000003802954,0.5572954,0.0004169476,0.001707162,0.00002217229,0.00003186965,0.3700924],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.976817,0.006535126,0.00002065233,0.0138363,0.0001484823,0.00009557889,0.000002285569,0.00000455082,0.002540012],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9269105,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7600113,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002923659,0.00004955758,0.0001066164,0.00008730838,0.0009308133,0.00004048976,0.0002268605,0.00002489221,0.001245352],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004501714,0.00003628702,0.00008209743,0.0007494871,0.0004767088,0.00007641697,0.000009932784,0.0001042493,0.00073927],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002173765,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006789516,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3219399,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9275092,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9991641,0.0001623847,0.0001364853,0.0001014825,0.0001912537,0.0002442963],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993733,0.00006824487,0.00004233204,0.0001808956,0.00007630922,0.0002589252],"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":[0.000001998357,0.000004679259,0.0003434358,0.0001250783,0.00008806668,0.00004223371,0.0005865324,0.000001344628,0.000001149169,0.8963947,0.01823348,0.08417731],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001471052,0.000003306981,0.001128171,0.0001021978,0.0005715037,0.000002789305,0.0002537648,0.000001247983,7.262145e-7,0.0001262195,0.997741,0.0000544074],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.0007303007,0.07858294,0.007165312,0.06684246,0.0003924686,0.0009964779,0.00007299806,0.00007433222,0.8451427],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9059471,0.05590986,0.0003780563,0.03278243,0.0008219255,0.00001535704,0.00007264866,0.00000971467,0.004062844],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9795074,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996676,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001409808,0.00005226208,0.0002839381,0.00001360199,0.0002491148,0.000001678807,0.0001518207,0.00003963823,0.0001850213],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001249605,0.00002645794,0.00003977333,0.0001167579,0.0002704491,0.00002394826,0.00001831831,0.0002312978,0.00002008637],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001027279,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007175268,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07281352,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2096232,"domain_scores_codex":[0.998741,0.0005970978,0.0002923951,0.00007156586,0.0001551848,0.0001427569],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988087,0.0004489135,0.0001759085,0.0003487402,0.000143438,0.00007432055],"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":[0.0001159138,0.00001379329,0.0007422293,0.02501609,0.00006411027,0.00000173944,0.04400839,0.000006733988,0.000008069585,0.8335315,0.03272302,0.06376842],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003565687,0.00003928596,0.0007488451,0.005807534,0.0001061421,3.788752e-7,0.004049227,5.397941e-7,0.000008800561,0.0009395119,0.987911,0.00003220223],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.0162103,0.1308997,0.00001036066,0.8329395,0.0000719335,0.00188306,0.00004945648,0.000007612071,0.017928],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9620117,0.02184893,0.00004129945,0.01580372,0.00007318276,0.00004093328,0.000008209054,0.000007221945,0.000164832],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9551879,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9333607,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001210995,0.00008833431,0.0001843497,0.0000105883,0.001784152,0.00004601217,0.0004080744,0.0000168847,0.0002030362],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001339366,0.00003960592,0.00002133281,0.0005229671,0.0003150722,0.00002769792,0.00002653044,0.00008466907,0.000007434671],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002999467,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006905638,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9409727,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998882,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9988341,0.0001980625,0.0001939473,0.0001263284,0.0003247703,0.0003227509],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998974,0.0002351148,0.00006607611,0.0001514956,0.0002597061,0.0003136004],"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":[0.0001503837,0.00002863899,0.003072772,0.0002554277,0.0002476119,0.0000454034,0.02846753,0.000006011385,0.000001899089,0.5404303,0.2494415,0.1778525],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002482309,0.00003292526,0.001282884,0.0003968999,0.00002758358,0.000002766752,0.002636634,2.477827e-7,0.000001152957,0.00191574,0.9936104,0.00006791535],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.005679952,0.0664805,0.000004581368,0.8471725,0.0001661367,0.002072951,0.0001335247,0.000007092239,0.07828276],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8923031,0.08961047,0.000007212004,0.01665467,0.0001415874,0.0001431544,0.000001346983,0.000004280824,0.001134177],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8866231,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995154,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003729781,0.00006070661,0.0001263764,0.00001747501,0.002053131,0.0002621314,0.0003923634,0.00003416332,0.0001904665],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003007034,0.00002505788,0.00004063095,0.0005527638,0.0008652098,0.0001280411,0.000008393292,0.0003295294,0.000002262324],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002067169,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008663365,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9251869,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9933586,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9985555,0.0006026446,0.0002663846,0.000062494,0.0003460283,0.0001669569],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984698,0.0006250968,0.0002178002,0.0002212229,0.0003534986,0.0001126296],"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":[0.000005689098,0.000007386533,0.0001232229,0.00008972084,0.00004402415,6.344434e-7,0.02724665,0.000003518768,0.000003243866,0.5381485,0.425881,0.008446442],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009388132,0.000004053705,0.0008754662,0.0002961012,0.00004005965,0.000005844589,0.002717026,9.994912e-7,0.000002264471,0.00283375,0.9930948,0.00003574052],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.001618031,0.1858879,0.000001678412,0.8038146,0.0001373697,0.0003552964,0.00003355947,0.000001663129,0.008149853],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9220716,0.05296569,0.0000147771,0.02308347,0.0001347419,0.00002656133,0.000007559148,0.000006339134,0.001689229],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9204536,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992461,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001194937,0.00006134222,0.0000919537,0.00001897224,0.003605379,0.0002655481,0.0003329848,0.00003130646,0.0008907444],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003129761,0.00003586386,0.00005182307,0.0004979742,0.0004358886,0.0002335099,0.000007183041,0.0001947213,0.0001613127],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0006930961,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001682921,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6794778,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.962082,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9989676,0.0003703171,0.0001511825,0.00008011187,0.0001968963,0.0002338519],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994253,0.0001738546,0.00009247527,0.0001187565,0.0001106106,0.00007898864],"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":[1.515572e-7,0.000001368319,0.00002746658,0.000009066775,0.000003399032,3.367203e-7,0.002556359,1.799807e-7,2.67402e-7,0.7549394,0.2419584,0.0005035851],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002563277,0.000001325784,0.000253068,0.0000757853,0.00002517032,0.000001622447,0.009337944,0.000001262555,2.036112e-7,0.006543719,0.983674,0.00006022763],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.0001511724,0.005736373,0.000006096506,0.676468,0.000239569,0.0002800129,0.000007793115,0.00001500355,0.317096],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9609424,0.001301814,0.00001119248,0.03458842,0.0003803993,0.00001819008,0.0000069831,0.000004808315,0.002745763],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9607912,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9976918,"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)","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001268616,0.00008471715,0.0001502221,0.00002946433,0.0007407742,0.00004189387,0.0003293213,0.00003338377,0.0002618573],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000485037,0.00005121633,0.0000532763,0.0004416818,0.0001152922,0.00005853525,0.000006319778,0.0001458446,0.000009933799],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004823993,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002819424,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.995981,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9994441,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9987905,0.0002787284,0.0002443815,0.0001231494,0.0002939351,0.0002693154],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993998,0.00006240778,0.00005702945,0.0002520938,0.00006001877,0.0001686891],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000004804191,0.00002266489,0.000140257,0.0001188328,0.00001957891,0.000002120275,0.007274924,0.0004168233,0.00002420502,0.07153533,0.9107578,0.009682607],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005853582,0.000004862136,0.002658247,0.0002255629,0.00002759517,0.000002298656,0.0002831974,0.000030679,0.000003734435,0.0001443808,0.996494,0.00006690832],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.00300094,0.02776383,0.0002956848,0.7069251,0.0002831689,0.001995655,0.00008442686,0.0000196889,0.2596315],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.980963,0.005080304,0.00002099473,0.007587074,0.0003756197,0.00005007126,0.00002242306,0.00001445809,0.005886064],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9779621,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5697511,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002962854,0.000116948,0.0001781022,0.00006258232,0.00520651,0.0005424049,0.0006635705,0.00005125362,0.0003729531],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007144953,0.00006633985,0.00006929805,0.0004380555,0.002691982,0.0001417529,0.00005806681,0.0001044307,0.0001642698],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003066766,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005543446,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1513694,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8871092,"domain_scores_codex":[0.998338,0.0003858553,0.0002353227,0.0001940371,0.0004029784,0.0004438217],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988974,0.000217535,0.00007644769,0.0003263002,0.0001385404,0.0003437247],"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":[0.000002874646,0.000006075476,0.0001506591,0.0001210261,0.000009850647,0.000002347721,0.06396823,0.00000322979,0.000009983795,0.86732,0.01157925,0.05682647],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006857001,0.00004224681,0.0006234706,0.001207333,0.00004911474,8.955863e-7,0.003673712,0.00001173097,0.00002130745,0.004837391,0.9892865,0.0001776634],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1923832,0.05334599,0.009143692,0.6650532,0.004006564,0.008267449,0.0002886717,0.0003448995,0.06716637],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9715962,0.0003673187,0.0001449738,0.02649284,0.0007933177,0.000037975,0.00001341578,0.00001637554,0.0005376187],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9777073,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9960886,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00166322,0.0001600784,0.0004018423,0.00004062022,0.001484476,0.00002415998,0.0003536042,0.0001278765,0.0003554412],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008966461,0.00008526115,0.0001341597,0.0003787227,0.0002629051,0.00003391143,0.00002589131,0.000861627,0.0004446326],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004375351,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003753342,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4485918,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5878673,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9981041,0.0002561151,0.0004169789,0.0002167148,0.0003817829,0.0006243353],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.997464,0.0002882499,0.00009159286,0.0009382875,0.0002863171,0.0009315494],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000008671885,0.000008847944,0.00373449,0.00328248,0.00004500019,0.0002495846,0.001175555,3.081908e-7,3.517634e-7,0.04236732,0.9197111,0.02941627],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001024991,0.00005352555,0.003050019,0.001246509,0.00005985624,0.0004049653,0.00002572589,0.000005806973,0.000001405661,0.0003327707,0.994621,0.00009587892],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.001116165,0.5340816,7.210077e-7,0.4467745,0.00023541,0.0007995143,0.00001180792,0.00001837724,0.01696194],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.154652,0.7286599,0.00008398951,0.09153391,0.0005995826,0.00007721783,0.00001756421,0.00003786978,0.02433792],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","teacher_disagreement_score":0.3552406,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998155,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002477884,0.00007671161,0.0001473428,0.00003213909,0.0007240445,0.00006543853,0.0005579964,0.00003746562,0.0008483187],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007270876,0.00004804121,0.00002661974,0.001071087,0.000180461,0.0002479104,0.00001938572,0.000291687,0.00007841976],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0008799475,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02418863,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9999112,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999923,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9985328,0.0004953411,0.0002931367,0.0001227069,0.000291134,0.0002648243],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986929,0.0001860795,0.0001642974,0.0004282075,0.0003699332,0.000158642],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000006359268,0.00002515565,0.001038954,0.0003576078,0.00002953356,0.000004756447,0.02738016,0.000003343131,0.000007612944,0.3000867,0.6364096,0.03465017],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003585139,0.000004887275,0.003806254,0.0002539775,0.00001585097,9.560439e-7,0.002044758,0.00002149769,0.0000048766,0.0003213031,0.9934242,0.00006558946],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.005707838,0.002376307,0.00000142259,0.8401634,0.0004101344,0.000763682,0.0000219175,0.000005655838,0.1505497],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9116609,0.002094471,0.00002455324,0.08480051,0.0002012029,0.0000235707,0.000008062123,0.000007438951,0.001179306],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.905953,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9813433,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002815023,0.00009901693,0.0001905528,0.00006625926,0.0005236875,0.0000986728,0.000285519,0.00007160764,0.0006458629],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001151572,0.00008590581,0.0000377008,0.0004510908,0.0003331988,0.0002095133,0.00002994256,0.0002337536,0.0003014781],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003880226,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000582864,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2073172,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8660042,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9984244,0.0003551401,0.0003528,0.0002226279,0.0002388788,0.0004061527],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990956,0.000304639,0.0001085379,0.0001867962,0.00009259092,0.0002118271],"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":[0.000002315767,0.00000412442,0.001380591,0.0001392951,0.000004986936,0.000004122332,0.00713384,0.00006601796,0.000008127722,0.8657977,0.0001252851,0.1253336],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004814335,0.0001418833,0.002464664,0.01550703,0.0001063504,0.00001176418,0.02990901,0.009979126,0.0002289174,0.07170963,0.8688573,0.001036192],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1292266,0.08200559,0.001809409,0.1942029,0.002148528,0.01050166,0.00005339701,0.0002747682,0.5797771],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9903595,0.00781932,0.0001114993,0.001359035,0.0001294859,0.00002305508,0.000002163957,0.00001034295,0.0001855846],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.868732,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7979613,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006822859,0.00005054213,0.0001044606,0.00000608247,0.0004457605,0.00002500009,0.0001443029,0.00003150417,0.0007161393],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009516175,0.00003132417,0.00002666971,0.00007459069,0.000783053,0.00005209408,0.000009349748,0.0000579519,0.0001408102],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002917787,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004233997,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9213745,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9205747,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9993606,0.00009090597,0.0001013228,0.00008021704,0.000113435,0.0002535311],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995227,0.00001856793,0.00003415023,0.0001145516,0.00002317811,0.0002868935],"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":[1.785932e-7,8.425545e-7,0.0004524121,0.0000401648,0.000003947637,0.000001714535,0.0003406691,1.659257e-9,7.610935e-8,0.995288,0.001638515,0.002233463],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000210973,0.000001983756,0.002336208,0.0006035017,0.000008925042,0.000004796786,0.0000479998,1.212121e-7,3.767281e-7,0.003561305,0.9933608,0.00005288563],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.001216387,0.06753682,0.000004311978,0.01445335,0.0001307135,0.0002785256,0.00004392269,0.00001414076,0.9163218],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9637297,0.01315592,0.00004770832,0.01791148,0.0002205076,0.00002137187,8.207679e-7,0.000004897329,0.004907627],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9917267,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7841223,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007118891,0.00007741421,0.00009952987,0.00006763579,0.0001712389,0.00008832022,0.0002653798,0.00001958415,0.0006475467],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003414636,0.00004705457,0.00005106386,0.0001430298,0.00006424506,0.0002473908,0.00001604745,0.00007939043,0.0001278669],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001345251,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000989159,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03906088,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2805364,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992425,0.00003131848,0.0002992897,0.0000869922,0.0001852974,0.0001545638],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995123,0.00003259263,0.0001577754,0.0001470142,0.0001339685,0.00001638479],"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":[0.000002575268,0.000009884468,0.000267492,0.00004892417,0.00001448525,0.000001162393,0.000009569489,0.0000197793,0.000005715448,0.9921117,0.006799634,0.0007091175],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002116736,0.000002092593,0.001676284,0.0003252795,0.00001457061,9.778474e-7,0.00001680325,0.001366877,0.00001250556,0.001700771,0.9946133,0.00005890216],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.002381528,0.02483325,0.00008699436,0.06487916,0.00169376,0.001961009,0.00002064892,0.00002930432,0.9041144],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9441715,0.004509015,0.00004766564,0.04990473,0.0001290842,0.00005170489,0.0000454486,0.00000980302,0.001131062],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9904109,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9673381,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.005018896,0.0002719403,0.0005436605,0.00005167809,0.001599348,0.0003024255,0.0009347496,0.0003686241,0.0008813945],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001899626,0.0002350989,0.0003810022,0.0006415421,0.004371466,0.0002048947,0.00006749572,0.001217351,0.0003674387],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0005400188,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003138555,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9884441,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9996254,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9944335,0.003842423,0.0003377148,0.0002679302,0.0003550185,0.0007633862],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9975036,0.0008493928,0.0001411069,0.0004556366,0.00008940751,0.0009608887],"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":[9.734707e-7,0.0000279718,0.0008579899,0.0003208375,0.00004605317,0.00007165335,0.006067196,3.132088e-7,0.000003003403,0.9686797,0.01441194,0.009512338],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001088007,0.00001133045,0.003305587,0.0008694237,0.0001665789,0.00002649454,0.00008780882,0.000001959123,3.952838e-7,0.09635594,0.8988051,0.0002605927],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.009001002,0.03946853,7.819593e-7,0.2430101,0.0006887467,0.0005040349,0.0001216673,0.00003760603,0.7071675],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9269061,0.03149649,0.0000271974,0.0352477,0.001198077,0.00003555555,0.00001818164,0.00004001036,0.005030701],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9179051,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997004,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007708584,0.00006060111,0.0001185967,0.0000914155,0.001081684,0.00006437123,0.0001813205,0.00003031837,0.005818938],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006942458,0.00004617137,0.0001042028,0.0005347368,0.0006434014,0.00004621901,0.000007045646,0.00004746788,0.0004634374],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004184538,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003794433,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5018474,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8563895,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9989472,0.0002233659,0.0001576233,0.0001274529,0.0002773933,0.0002669796],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992998,0.00003074445,0.00006134532,0.0001782065,0.0001688903,0.0002610439],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[6.04902e-7,0.000002991614,0.001847486,0.0000422539,0.0001216915,0.000002534167,0.001334598,0.00001938375,0.000001279569,0.978062,0.0154604,0.003104788],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001136298,0.000009557229,0.004890897,0.00003591518,0.0004890827,0.000001137879,0.0007789576,0.00007804193,0.00001226966,0.003204893,0.9902793,0.0001062748],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.0108133,0.02424691,0.003211678,0.1691188,0.001124426,0.003045405,0.0002400065,0.00009578967,0.7881037],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.988133,0.001221499,0.0001090739,0.009712785,0.0002263388,0.00002188425,0.00007320793,0.000003145503,0.0004991146],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9773197,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9950899,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.001062591,0.00005753436,0.0001205104,0.00003156747,0.001836083,0.00004790195,0.0004032529,0.00001919162,0.0001812028],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003403097,0.00003323763,0.00003447745,0.00052241,0.003025742,0.0001884484,0.00003151804,0.00006263975,0.00004718953],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003051921,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001092669,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7600735,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9369955,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9989514,0.0002293964,0.0001453033,0.0001298113,0.0003439888,0.0002000864],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990823,0.000475917,0.00006956773,0.0001350387,0.000177222,0.00005994226],"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":[0.00000215257,0.000005433385,0.0005038192,0.000009051803,0.000003758902,0.000002225515,0.006083455,1.878532e-7,0.00001633307,0.9655042,0.01065153,0.0172179],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000314503,0.00002209069,0.05867743,0.00394697,0.00002517157,5.155159e-7,0.001213243,0.000006435093,0.00004300467,0.00656835,0.9293299,0.0001354224],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.05767362,0.082714,0.00001040458,0.7990283,0.0007377147,0.001317437,0.0001123018,0.00002146465,0.05838473],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9820674,0.01114957,0.0000132269,0.006459563,0.0001921426,0.00002344285,5.508417e-7,0.000001880707,0.00009219877],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9589358,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996874,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004540273,0.00003861962,0.00009969499,0.00001346357,0.0002742725,0.00001473609,0.0001873206,0.00001161836,0.0001273413],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007490704,0.00002154947,0.00001692036,0.0000539061,0.0001133692,0.00003473093,0.000002527987,0.00006450759,0.000003501449],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002840797,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002799324,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9973412,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999932,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994044,0.0001319419,0.0001407083,0.00005346288,0.0001573908,0.0001120432],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996819,0.00006519647,0.00005187641,0.00008696087,0.00004232834,0.00007171668],"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":[0.000002941237,9.420043e-7,0.00004936208,0.0000272246,0.000002108878,0.000006479594,0.0004038429,3.397341e-7,2.874184e-8,0.9967092,0.001500332,0.001297249],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002800911,0.00002260012,0.07623143,0.0007457957,0.0001220361,0.000008695633,0.0002390063,0.00002540405,0.000001621078,0.03278747,0.8893878,0.0001480365],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.4078759,0.02779557,0.000001425331,0.3689608,0.0004728956,0.001481504,0.00005427455,0.000007113192,0.1933505],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9915606,0.002304672,0.000002860897,0.005448523,0.00005911358,0.000003195067,0.000002867474,0.000001269526,0.0006168535],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9639217,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4965881,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01251445,0.00006653469,0.0003400538,0.0001099654,0.00008351971,0.00002516425,0.0004946378,0.0001535709,0.0004005467],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0263698,0.00003937407,0.00002815924,0.0003572775,0.000946006,0.00004513953,0.0002838864,0.001547114,0.00003360004],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001490714,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002936287,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9268361,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9948518,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9979373,0.0006288316,0.0003924562,0.0002879345,0.0004125573,0.0003409531],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9897627,0.008301026,0.00003670144,0.001383912,0.0002434937,0.0002722252],"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":[0.00007635915,0.000133158,0.1733992,0.01321851,0.000063244,0.0004074454,0.0001161473,2.834033e-7,0.0001757238,0.3216623,0.1459029,0.3448448],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001939387,0.00006415943,0.213325,0.004377146,0.0000144611,0.00001512182,0.00001737266,0.000005704499,0.000007817115,0.008428021,0.773494,0.00005724605],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.2093713,0.4489365,0.000003103923,0.3240804,0.00007768832,0.002907593,0.0006005291,0.00001658988,0.01400631],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6259388,0.358453,0.0007494276,0.00819031,0.0002183367,0.00003172476,0.0003089007,0.00002612836,0.006083342],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6275911,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9818315,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00251405,0.0000630856,0.0001887753,0.0000221016,0.0004780785,0.00003031367,0.0004908696,0.00002743063,0.000003743992],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005057348,0.00002747122,0.00003396791,0.0001875882,0.002148378,0.00004290899,0.00001792167,0.000118055,7.487392e-7],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001047312,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002666255,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9539492,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9839276,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9984655,0.0007851686,0.0002519397,0.00007224001,0.0002358024,0.0001893395],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988139,0.0003680375,0.0001910475,0.0002946739,0.0001625844,0.0001698006],"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":[0.000002074132,0.000002119182,0.003280482,0.0000221689,0.00000804152,1.743228e-7,0.01265492,0.000004660898,2.191433e-7,0.9758291,0.006857875,0.001338222],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009814742,0.00001223323,0.001339088,0.0003046242,0.0000616928,0.000003006811,0.006875363,0.00002341125,0.000001743004,0.007545561,0.9836861,0.0000489555],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.09319512,0.4103151,0.000002306607,0.3015068,0.0003337543,0.002860194,0.0001738969,0.00001034706,0.1916025],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9809955,0.01378668,0.000007892938,0.005125987,0.00004504861,0.00001068721,0.000001941267,0.00000332056,0.00002287864],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9768283,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7915787,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006151535,0.00004421989,0.00009528221,0.00001565678,0.0005089311,0.0000354596,0.0002877658,0.00002772247,0.000513587],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00005574952,0.00003315567,0.00003262189,0.0002979047,0.0001308524,0.00006178904,0.00001270043,0.0001104322,0.0003895632],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002231277,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003718844,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7558584,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.984143,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9993619,0.000105292,0.0001030285,0.00008542783,0.0001038517,0.0002405077],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995826,0.00002617791,0.00002775217,0.0001778974,0.00001610681,0.0001694081],"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":[1.648765e-7,0.000002445135,0.0001251543,0.00001040711,0.000001287044,0.000003147474,0.000266599,2.835918e-7,7.280697e-7,0.9875983,0.002196658,0.009794823],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002309751,0.000001371931,0.001370652,0.0001448595,0.000005836492,7.929972e-7,0.00001992924,0.000001097931,5.248621e-7,0.006445879,0.9919391,0.00004689247],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.00591525,0.0110054,0.000003459598,0.2512847,0.00006747839,0.0007330526,0.000006498583,0.00002097234,0.7309632],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9618923,0.02168845,0.00001395224,0.01497611,0.0001661151,0.00004354156,0.000001980937,0.000005747988,0.001211805],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9897424,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5623417,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001384546,0.0003047975,0.0008860193,0.0001108184,0.0006378992,0.00002263354,0.0002519087,0.0001486484,0.000456304],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005988138,0.0002120013,0.00008804654,0.0005538095,0.0001458064,0.0002175107,0.00006294004,0.0004061397,0.0001237782],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004711681,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0008342182,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5419752,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7650149,"domain_scores_codex":[0.997142,0.0009138813,0.0005950156,0.0003352818,0.0002664285,0.0007474357],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9974906,0.0004287955,0.0002954219,0.0005728816,0.0002459082,0.0009664324],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001136176,0.0000778471,0.196977,0.0249787,0.0002306284,0.00001702901,0.01715217,8.209511e-8,0.00003474222,0.005907564,0.5456792,0.2088315],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004548279,0.00005644488,0.3088334,0.02362131,0.0005154702,0.00001961006,0.001023862,6.351703e-7,9.773497e-7,0.0001143731,0.6650615,0.0002975857],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1970129,0.7330925,0.000006166549,0.06296825,0.0009407731,0.003521021,0.0003615866,0.00004226966,0.002054463],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6959984,0.2875468,0.0001647187,0.0124891,0.0006583345,0.0002222491,0.0001725497,0.00008147152,0.002666288],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4989855,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8645164,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004123981,0.000120103,0.0002423326,0.00006145587,0.0001568655,0.00004568943,0.000159225,0.0002819304,0.0005206331],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007815151,0.00008093596,0.00007375652,0.0002946464,0.0003969244,0.0002393785,0.00001360346,0.0004358853,0.001172736],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001053783,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003681836,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1103413,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1168265,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9984334,0.0004106783,0.0003573586,0.00008764315,0.0003526669,0.0003582621],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983776,0.00008264001,0.0001230723,0.0002575201,0.0002487128,0.0009104324],"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":[0.000004283841,0.000008515191,0.0001379755,0.004546926,0.00004614646,0.0000104759,0.001584778,0.00002011682,0.000002996619,0.140591,0.1178197,0.7352271],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000225572,0.00004678153,0.003628301,0.007958909,0.0002037806,0.00008140664,0.00008925535,0.001620984,0.000008270188,0.004005618,0.9820303,0.0001008154],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.000113306,0.382568,0.0003336768,0.5997416,0.001102328,0.0006155068,0.00002586678,0.00001232068,0.01548741],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4215704,0.4825947,0.0004959814,0.0860396,0.002460721,0.00007260284,0.0004311207,0.00003076514,0.006304168],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8642106,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996049,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002287292,0.00005841755,0.0001707006,0.00001629014,0.0005101659,0.0000234948,0.0001933617,0.00003311205,0.0003709127],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001391912,0.00003143911,0.00006134689,0.0001174218,0.0004973462,0.00006380637,0.00001797224,0.00008127293,0.00003953938],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000625947,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001989986,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3323975,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5457561,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9990762,0.0002909556,0.0001554654,0.00005826411,0.0001653551,0.0002536845],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999337,0.0001096923,0.00007801992,0.0001969801,0.00004483033,0.0002334419],"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":[0.000002770932,0.000006194515,0.001287897,0.0001436679,0.00002285802,3.026599e-7,0.01249003,6.956411e-8,0.000002236422,0.9383932,0.01769458,0.02995621],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008662137,0.00000424883,0.003296545,0.0001969125,0.0000473871,0.0000015755,0.0001296094,0.000001454442,0.000001851886,0.0001035234,0.9960876,0.00004272262],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02263618,0.4083561,0.000004654708,0.1892243,0.0008443787,0.002096789,0.00002633201,0.00002804823,0.3767832],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8855859,0.1062858,0.000006731664,0.006056287,0.00044763,0.00002659154,0.000001346383,0.000006727363,0.001583007],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.978393,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6720482,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000486177,0.00007264793,0.0001138137,0.000019234,0.002076147,0.0004018209,0.000297916,0.00003491284,0.0002846497],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009685653,0.00005248022,0.00002557943,0.00002893184,0.0001650075,0.0001286741,0.00002861304,0.00004562662,0.0001334225],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001193118,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005589508,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6795286,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9925618,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994025,0.00007967933,0.00006866499,0.0001109479,0.000120946,0.0002173037],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993893,0.00002119303,0.00005230292,0.00025839,0.000008984077,0.000269859],"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":[0.000002828442,0.000009818265,0.005390642,0.0005175432,0.0000342587,0.00001190834,0.01189144,3.865248e-7,0.00000913124,0.6994283,0.07952648,0.2031773],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003004215,0.000006458607,0.003079972,0.0005064229,0.00001092781,0.000001303141,0.00006236519,1.51114e-7,0.00000301005,0.0002736794,0.9959494,0.00007622584],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.00922114,0.06021102,1.474949e-7,0.8475518,0.0004392358,0.0008964704,0.00002802028,0.00001465527,0.08163752],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.3986715,0.4338046,0.00002884319,0.123662,0.001214384,0.0001377984,0.000006539844,0.00003146494,0.04244287],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.916423,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999223,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000401153,0.00002821369,0.00008650965,0.000005710589,0.0003103951,0.000008714069,0.0002036858,0.00001338545,0.00004712217],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004491573,0.00001596903,0.00003707877,0.0001614973,0.0002053451,0.0000264491,0.0000218131,0.00004324693,0.00000398174],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005796662,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002740476,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4687234,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7741103,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9996444,0.00004221427,0.00009937983,0.00004432016,0.00008043042,0.00008924151],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996849,0.00001822639,0.00005194622,0.0001581943,0.00002299841,0.00006376077],"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":[2.554123e-8,8.815445e-7,0.00003362005,0.000165919,0.000002413622,5.229403e-8,0.0004224243,0.000001449026,0.000006155326,0.9967238,0.00005542321,0.002587809],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002609309,0.000001749927,0.001213105,0.00122734,0.00002404195,7.271668e-7,0.0001116498,5.083769e-7,0.00002654428,0.006146204,0.9911906,0.00003146749],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01926108,0.3940304,0.000009199957,0.2790629,0.0001091672,0.001582156,0.000050092,0.00001612959,0.3058788],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9635257,0.03445189,0.00002865773,0.001875285,0.00001792665,0.000005673293,1.830285e-7,0.000002524707,0.00009218997],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9911351,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5348144,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009424619,0.00007021923,0.0001511806,0.00003577545,0.001279516,0.00002791798,0.0002893111,0.00005387283,0.0002783395],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004152337,0.00003650648,0.00006289813,0.0003950582,0.000301929,0.00006904642,0.000002540679,0.0001516825,0.0000255888],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004378362,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002035006,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8490423,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.993347,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9990052,0.0002526538,0.0001857695,0.00009636625,0.0001876232,0.0002724076],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995232,0.00002799046,0.00009470395,0.0001935004,0.00005868842,0.0001019146],"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":[8.047332e-7,0.000006399549,0.0001583003,0.00003689296,0.000002547519,0.00000313281,0.002196951,0.000001950696,0.000002255606,0.9929598,0.001796769,0.002834188],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004017542,0.000009580825,0.002693132,0.0006329129,0.00001913233,0.000004251191,0.00002937021,0.000001184866,0.000008533474,0.003094821,0.9934071,0.0000597532],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03976535,0.01260667,0.000002830967,0.02881169,0.0008067946,0.001405659,0.00002415659,0.00002363,0.9165532],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9929432,0.003586332,0.000009615795,0.001867243,0.0002140528,0.0000045274,0.000002831108,0.000001803914,0.001370403],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9916104,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.984113,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.00253995,0.000191908,0.0006185357,0.000130901,0.0007406786,0.0001211606,0.0003209436,0.0001585459,0.001705846],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002190401,0.0001967282,0.0002132115,0.000236634,0.0004285777,0.0004091077,0.00002727601,0.0001362817,0.002259611],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0040955,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001306958,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4401233,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8982732,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9978856,0.000233686,0.0008794355,0.000422664,0.0000422881,0.0005362732],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984679,0.0001164087,0.0005655983,0.0004834199,0.00007866806,0.0002880477],"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":[0.00000481824,0.00002583918,0.003749557,0.00064561,0.0001592437,0.000002531471,0.0008576632,0.00000850791,0.000003544606,0.906311,0.05124708,0.03698454],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003218058,0.00005711637,0.006772303,0.00238097,0.00004776516,0.00001559294,0.000117929,0.00002759328,0.00002411871,0.06491873,0.9250091,0.0003069297],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.003274861,0.3679168,0.0008975686,0.1912181,0.004321331,0.001789561,0.0008290165,0.00002676556,0.4297259],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5561066,0.40147,0.00005259135,0.006618246,0.0005879152,0.0001577399,0.00002039189,0.00006141674,0.03492516],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8737621,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997276,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}