{"meta":{"page":1,"per_page":50,"max_per_page":100,"total":11,"total_is_capped":false,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":11,"direct_label_status":"direct model label, unvalidated","prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated (Codex and Gemma teacher distillation)","score_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline (scores rank; they never assert a category)","snapshot":{"source":"OpenAlex, pinned release, all 482 partitions","release":"2026-06-24","frame_built":"2026-07-12","author_layer_release":"2026-06-26"},"query_hash":"9b844868a6fa","filters":{"venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process"}},"results":[{"id":"W264846025","doi":"","title":"Written and Oral Persuasion in the United States Courts: A District Judge's Perspective on Their History, Function, and Future","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":18,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Argument (complex analysis); Adversarial system; Persuasion; Sociology; Political science; Psychology; Medicine","authors":[{"name":"Mark R. Kravitz","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0183438170065567,"gpt":0.3047617679055159,"spread":0.2864179508989592,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005234308,0.0002273239,0.0004200263,0.002673572,0.01015333,0.02646218,0.001450654,0.006638052,0.004244654],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01226465,0.0003959194,0.0002811004,0.002646022,0.01352917,0.006928431,0.004341395,0.008350154,0.0003755325],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01321457,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009835873,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03989949,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07348859,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9922255,0.004270407,0.0003646049,0.0005921688,0.001393869,0.001153553],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9879865,0.006747902,0.001103284,0.0003933316,0.00226101,0.001507995],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00004445478,0.0001197518,0.002358525,0.0001808615,0.000009152842,0.0003228089,0.04858204,0.0001350344,0.0001627424,0.8445568,0.02839993,0.07512789],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004190396,0.0001406405,0.01555629,0.001732419,0.00003045751,0.0004303182,0.07860679,0.0004709464,0.0007667535,0.1103807,0.7917289,0.0001137361],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.07321206,0.1643437,0.001735029,0.2525697,0.002825509,0.00004120276,0.000117033,0.00005923332,0.5050966],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9324006,0.01559976,0.0009690795,0.01628153,0.001058176,0.000061559,0.00003857127,0.00002669638,0.03356402],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.03989949,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.09587884,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1813242488","doi":"","title":"The Language of Supreme Court Briefs: A Large-Scale Quantitative Investigation","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":14,"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; Skepticism; Political science; Scope (computer science); Majority opinion; Sociology; Psychology; Computer science","authors":[{"name":"Brady Coleman","is_ca":false},{"name":"Quy H. Phung","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02534471768660764,"gpt":0.3886354509415238,"spread":0.3632907332549162,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["bibliometrics"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02811152,0.0002641615,0.0004939095,0.008646303,0.00381812,0.005765091,0.001429145,0.001110783,0.003719846],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1401995,0.0005503542,0.0003287162,0.0119951,0.004559476,0.006824879,0.003453378,0.001545223,0.0005799474],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004777394,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003059195,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005490893,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008265975,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9673048,0.02059893,0.003751439,0.001690257,0.005849261,0.0008053821],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.7758425,0.1629989,0.03441065,0.005128768,0.01849708,0.003122085],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0002990683,0.0007696945,0.2150655,0.003676261,0.00009225545,0.0009291339,0.6742414,0.000273411,0.003619352,0.01112897,0.009229815,0.08067518],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002744084,0.0004511401,0.2370184,0.001521535,0.0000368341,0.0003592456,0.7121471,0.0006094296,0.000845158,0.001800529,0.04508084,0.0001023545],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9867947,0.0008867838,0.002585744,0.001116889,0.00005005793,0.0008141054,0.001520279,0.00002647965,0.006204849],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9888535,0.001019849,0.003623754,0.0006140313,0.00007846127,0.002804638,0.001477326,0.00003873432,0.001489806],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9913537,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1486697,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W338120031","doi":"","title":"Selecting the Supremes: The Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Politics; Political science; Democracy; Economic Justice; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Peter J. McCormick","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0164126871809744,"gpt":0.3103397535646305,"spread":0.2939270663836561,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004867392,0.000328075,0.0004415256,0.002922387,0.04076243,0.01218911,0.002921085,0.004755789,0.01207688],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02240128,0.0006043026,0.0003431223,0.004487074,0.007732362,0.001786947,0.002803969,0.005082404,0.0008093652],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.188552,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2389032,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9929234,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9978328,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9879618,0.001341741,0.000220288,0.001362335,0.003561332,0.005552451],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9872559,0.002478972,0.0004185248,0.0002422853,0.005641347,0.003962952],"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":[0.0001985725,0.00008998837,0.04106762,0.0002020049,0.00005267349,0.002868326,0.0286205,0.001790313,0.001314807,0.4284286,0.4169259,0.07844075],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006653827,0.00004932275,0.07186033,0.0005350502,0.00009760272,0.000298584,0.04493232,0.002224485,0.001057865,0.02947311,0.8491219,0.0002830079],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.2325765,0.01185096,0.002480172,0.1303707,0.003312473,0.0005088265,0.002158758,0.0002371662,0.6165045],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8958052,0.002666927,0.001549341,0.0105443,0.0003166393,0.00006973889,0.0003654812,0.00006577787,0.08861664],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.188552,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9411647,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W208829756","doi":"","title":"The Supreme Court of Canada: Its History, Powers and Responsibilities","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Supreme court; Law; Original jurisdiction; Certiorari; Court of record; Jurisdiction; Majority opinion; Political science; Constitution; Appeal; Court of equity; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Frank Iacobucci","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03361170139910823,"gpt":0.2959541869515016,"spread":0.2623424855523933,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002795804,0.000321914,0.0003940728,0.00357449,0.03017154,0.01718181,0.001991052,0.004584612,0.004547631],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01002267,0.0005176883,0.0002216992,0.008161867,0.02239058,0.002961512,0.002722281,0.006669096,0.0004207992],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1671843,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2177468,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9860635,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9927216,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9918891,0.0009023042,0.0001438269,0.000638388,0.004080681,0.002345867],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9936812,0.001229325,0.0002513731,0.0001396059,0.003232087,0.001466413],"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":[0.00001154563,0.000009040672,0.00215451,0.00007517906,0.00000862389,0.0002280036,0.01020494,0.0002591471,0.0001127864,0.8330681,0.09997229,0.05389584],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006243139,0.000007937938,0.008752447,0.0005346769,0.00001302543,0.0001327464,0.006317066,0.0003015926,0.0001012894,0.04174214,0.9420295,0.0000613368],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02901749,0.1747515,0.002422038,0.2248446,0.002752469,0.00004621089,0.000577783,0.0001265616,0.5654615],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8014129,0.06838169,0.002212249,0.02467886,0.001422129,0.00004178069,0.0002750862,0.00009957529,0.1014757],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8328156,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9659481,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W322187415","doi":"","title":"The Oral Judgment Practice in the Canadian Appellate Courts","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","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":"Appeal; Supreme court; Law; Argument (complex analysis); Common law; Psychology; Political science; Medicine","authors":[{"name":"J. E. Côté","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01983593079110275,"gpt":0.3416818021330048,"spread":0.321845871341902,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003542364,0.0002928285,0.0002521108,0.002871549,0.02316821,0.009739755,0.002587745,0.003036846,0.01287888],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01301873,0.0005875828,0.0002826672,0.004729159,0.01139162,0.001470538,0.002896706,0.002852249,0.0008498491],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.117488,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1439348,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9922133,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9966994,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9899188,0.0007314488,0.0002914579,0.0007006169,0.006161752,0.002195818],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9878018,0.001770978,0.0007017832,0.0004804896,0.006341477,0.002903369],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001053276,0.0001668354,0.03968587,0.0004633918,0.00003011154,0.003502046,0.1033015,0.001152201,0.002882077,0.4008913,0.197931,0.2498883],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001767205,0.00006266279,0.06681085,0.0004940122,0.00003067656,0.0005999519,0.02763174,0.0008069425,0.0007500708,0.006264761,0.8963157,0.0002150254],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.2850886,0.018368,0.002749102,0.07943641,0.001495142,0.0002537554,0.001298241,0.0002890491,0.6110218],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9046659,0.004602556,0.002141199,0.005543827,0.0002050942,0.00003530694,0.0001909997,0.00004774465,0.08256734],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.117488,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8524387,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W234024414","doi":"","title":"Retired and Working","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Occupational and Professional Licensing Regulation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Law; Irish; High Court; Politics; Queen (butterfly); Commonwealth; Sociology; Courage; Political science","authors":[{"name":"Roger Philip Kerans","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02357102367130322,"gpt":0.2551711283137382,"spread":0.231600104642435,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00289692,0.0006905076,0.001116828,0.001395712,0.01196618,0.007305098,0.001573814,0.002444355,0.1420143],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01088759,0.0004605672,0.0008011952,0.001188843,0.001978568,0.005753663,0.006572628,0.006580679,0.07414453],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.002212465,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008730168,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02305962,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.04985474,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9959273,0.0005024011,0.0001456112,0.0004448821,0.0009600083,0.002019851],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.992717,0.000233572,0.0002883819,0.0002881713,0.001847302,0.004625451],"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":[0.00007049808,0.000186607,0.01059396,0.0001797749,0.00001878233,0.001076989,0.01476613,0.00002891073,0.0004035969,0.00879663,0.8446728,0.1192053],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001344857,0.0001288195,0.01034846,0.0004383117,0.00001256935,0.0007083603,0.01756808,0.00002196082,0.00007071693,0.001550831,0.9690956,0.00004290688],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1111343,0.02607918,0.002246893,0.2553446,0.04458767,0.0008443579,0.006603779,0.0009583536,0.5522008],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.1433075,0.01089013,0.00115213,0.1183803,0.002766144,0.0004401096,0.002362403,0.0003762744,0.720325],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1420143,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4750853,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2293451274","doi":"","title":"Use of Electronic Appeal Transcripts in the Alberta Court of Appeal","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Law; Political science","authors":[{"name":"Roger Philip Kerans","is_ca":false},{"name":"Patrick Keys","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03880758510275726,"gpt":0.3646939187647742,"spread":0.3258863336620169,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02366497,0.0003919523,0.0003861963,0.002899121,0.01208201,0.007957714,0.002705592,0.003220339,0.03743024],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05568153,0.001096704,0.0004063821,0.003387985,0.004110047,0.002636575,0.004647547,0.004476184,0.008266049],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01526984,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03836626,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3535182,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7287111,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9767038,0.006454484,0.0008221457,0.001281899,0.01240714,0.002330521],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9573368,0.02544819,0.001070881,0.003926519,0.01026196,0.001955586],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0006432618,0.0005699329,0.009085828,0.0002488904,0.00002622728,0.003763705,0.01664429,0.001587237,0.00972832,0.08151882,0.4667913,0.4093921],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00062346,0.0006834044,0.05202606,0.0006468616,0.00008963213,0.001477712,0.02475167,0.008508717,0.01103567,0.02125032,0.8783834,0.0005230677],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1757397,0.001102249,0.04913664,0.05635611,0.0044329,0.004776394,0.002792439,0.004768538,0.700895],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4945937,0.0008453034,0.05322213,0.01368872,0.0009521488,0.001953459,0.001666479,0.0005788108,0.4324993],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6464818,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.702921,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W345341298","doi":"","title":"Planning and Conduct of the National Conference","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"York University","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Economic Justice; Political science; State (computer science); Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Arthur J. England","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0903722199174186,"gpt":0.4345304889674785,"spread":0.3441582690500599,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.06609624,0.001618917,0.00104803,0.007554327,0.0141278,0.0153912,0.006191922,0.0059498,0.1237846],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06772975,0.001687192,0.001423145,0.003951605,0.003153137,0.006901576,0.0116925,0.01453644,0.04108969],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01724231,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07667099,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01000329,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02019049,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9639443,0.01547982,0.002561479,0.003060989,0.008007288,0.006946142],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8830344,0.01166459,0.002932231,0.003965112,0.0464797,0.051924],"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":[0.0004176249,0.001358507,0.002210372,0.001809487,0.00002630477,0.001580192,0.006932631,0.001852257,0.002445821,0.05446953,0.7312103,0.195687],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006788722,0.0001846074,0.002675201,0.0009577775,0.000006660137,0.0001824638,0.009353256,0.0005475479,0.0005369551,0.007915304,0.9775109,0.00006122469],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01230441,0.005178796,0.08408143,0.102281,0.03898092,0.10453,0.007256375,0.002097989,0.643289],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.07767996,0.00623088,0.2384055,0.03700545,0.01206187,0.1550079,0.01125373,0.001632342,0.4607224],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1237846,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4141008,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3148845190","doi":"","title":"Comparing \"Appels\" and Oranges: Evaluating the Link between Appeal Processes and Judiciary Structures in Canada and France","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Nothing; Simple (philosophy); Law; Jurisdiction; Sociology; Epistemology; Political science; Law and economics; Philosophy","authors":[{"name":"Mike Madden","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1082053312537831,"gpt":0.3722174050665469,"spread":0.2640120738127638,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009474313,0.0004129048,0.0006745241,0.005060222,0.007967899,0.008559686,0.002785915,0.002674439,0.007407752],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04592519,0.0002453091,0.0006926978,0.005470149,0.006568952,0.002331531,0.003064138,0.002518761,0.000371461],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1256634,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06451037,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9909158,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9930131,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9858627,0.003624742,0.0003956138,0.0008295847,0.006800006,0.002487377],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9589576,0.01596912,0.004783882,0.0006746596,0.01652786,0.003086872],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.001285276,0.0006855581,0.657968,0.0004729929,0.0005744113,0.000889105,0.06813768,0.01033288,0.0008777776,0.163288,0.03956656,0.05592183],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001137121,0.0004589931,0.7642689,0.000762118,0.0003376527,0.0001018646,0.131901,0.01175033,0.0008026478,0.01127461,0.07793171,0.0002964353],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9299037,0.001985928,0.001117248,0.007354263,0.00009025871,0.000217394,0.0009837248,0.00003479683,0.05831266],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9903367,0.0003583501,0.0005345454,0.0008243915,0.00003262524,0.00006897903,0.0004153447,0.00001425491,0.007414986],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1256634,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9117559,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125875054","doi":"","title":"Calling on U.S. Courts to Adopt Canada's Unified Approach to Statutory Interpretation","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Statutory interpretation; Statute; Legislative history; Statutory law; Legislative intent; Law; Legislature; Meaning (existential); Supreme court; Interpretation (philosophy); Political science; Sociology; Epistemology; Computer science","authors":[{"name":"Amir Pichhadze","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02019172881396807,"gpt":0.3236852208358036,"spread":0.3034934920218356,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008163044,0.0005602292,0.0004848708,0.00251983,0.01330233,0.01488865,0.00370325,0.01012889,0.005020978],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01209781,0.0005681355,0.001053745,0.004065943,0.0158583,0.003950785,0.003428592,0.01142836,0.000799864],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09143256,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2249801,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9579326,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9727897,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9808977,0.002505262,0.0008077335,0.001857877,0.01097857,0.002952795],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9854195,0.002224185,0.0006194006,0.0006780194,0.009976714,0.00108218],"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":[0.000007206952,0.00001196061,0.001107365,0.0000682514,0.000007881731,0.0001546308,0.001884279,0.0004163146,0.0002584834,0.9203978,0.06153488,0.01415113],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004016699,0.00004826036,0.007338499,0.001022133,0.0000714237,0.0002074045,0.003833243,0.003468977,0.001164715,0.180081,0.8024398,0.0002843467],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","genre_scores_codex":[0.02730623,0.01471495,0.02886418,0.4229881,0.005069771,0.0005256222,0.001928359,0.0008327485,0.49777],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5961803,0.007768533,0.04206086,0.1816183,0.001380944,0.0003135159,0.0007443129,0.0002167264,0.1697164],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09143256,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6633927,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2529794700","doi":"","title":"A Practical Guide to Appellate Judging","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Law; Trial court; Political science; Supreme court; Law of the case; Economic Justice; Court of record; Remand (court procedure); Sociology; Original jurisdiction","authors":[{"name":"J. E. Côté","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05537421702774193,"gpt":0.4255470423250415,"spread":0.3701728252972996,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005065912,0.001362147,0.001212173,0.00332155,0.005649765,0.005975119,0.003347718,0.005911607,0.2008768],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02117432,0.001145742,0.0008060829,0.003551405,0.002732417,0.005117069,0.004149155,0.006871792,0.1900907],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.003269949,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008746595,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01387172,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03577399,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9928144,0.00268184,0.0006707887,0.0006925364,0.002501291,0.0006391826],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98892,0.003428457,0.0003303465,0.0008217521,0.005533392,0.0009659604],"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":[0.000009978731,0.00003759686,0.0001153317,0.0001119257,9.225239e-7,0.0001271312,0.000568929,0.00008559605,0.0001827835,0.01015809,0.9146025,0.0739992],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000002860941,0.000008778925,0.0001233982,0.0001396445,4.800117e-7,0.0001126138,0.0003589437,0.00009466115,0.00004393965,0.003643257,0.9954637,0.000007728608],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.001275842,0.01487596,0.07130606,0.05674522,0.01299182,0.002346219,0.004402616,0.00643521,0.829621],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.009172752,0.008512328,0.07949288,0.02660892,0.00267999,0.001559656,0.003246553,0.002192814,0.8665341],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.2008768,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6719999,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}