{"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"},"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002586698,0.0001107097,0.0001662938,0.00008712415,0.0004508047,0.0001370245,0.0001457461,0.00006815801,0.000008551542],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002766011,0.00005537241,0.00001919731,0.0002826713,0.0001807442,0.0006319185,0.00001028674,0.000413237,6.421395e-7],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008560594,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001327056,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002218418,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0002224749,"domain_scores_codex":[0.998718,0.0004921306,0.000204934,0.0001054359,0.0003237838,0.0001556639],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985473,0.0005835798,0.0003667628,0.00005941738,0.0003749626,0.0000679563],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.005119448,0.0004570522,0.001128415,0.0001046417,0.0001453381,0.00004651144,0.9211416,0.00007029025,0.00006579212,0.02309917,0.01042614,0.03819561],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006107968,0.000933697,0.004027329,0.00008364337,0.0001397116,0.0001219322,0.5415093,0.00004271468,0.000005465711,0.01837769,0.434021,0.0001267482],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.8313127,0.02204424,0.00003515898,0.1340304,0.0001916927,0.0002885819,0.000002825929,0.00001132346,0.01208308],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9799291,0.01694027,0.000004957255,0.002601466,0.0004726717,6.538986e-7,6.64896e-7,0.00000467378,0.00004552021],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4235948,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3467271,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006875135,0.00005581526,0.0000905132,0.00004206642,0.0006836792,0.0001581776,0.0002402682,0.00005144096,0.00005578775],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005223735,0.00003223753,0.00002324547,0.0003921475,0.0003499052,0.001396212,0.00001553189,0.0006663107,0.000007597149],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000008448806,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006866975,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0007919362,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.001825237,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9987463,0.0004066479,0.0003096347,0.00004952281,0.0003614262,0.0001264984],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9949997,0.002834535,0.000959488,0.0001011198,0.001041557,0.00006361354],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0005523244,0.0001681514,0.001393467,0.00004608808,0.0001238093,0.00000229074,0.9135854,0.00002245028,0.008357278,0.0647594,0.005823166,0.00516622],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003188848,0.0001181688,0.0007943502,0.00003518321,0.0001645877,0.00006803142,0.5561821,0.0001078058,0.00283125,0.008738125,0.4305507,0.00009081871],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.8122218,0.000689777,0.0001810713,0.1695486,0.0003925728,0.000144914,0.000003032885,0.000006346627,0.01681192],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9965128,0.001022085,0.0007780133,0.0009600342,0.000198421,0.000001083092,6.216725e-7,0.000005446254,0.0005214968],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4247275,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6253676,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003868131,0.00007392454,0.0001361628,0.00001465935,0.0007407296,0.00003430306,0.0004874029,0.00002148567,0.00003713386],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0009121789,0.00002950803,0.00003385085,0.0002243367,0.0004675457,0.0001811108,0.00003808257,0.0002600313,0.000001096557],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005234899,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00268345,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05798074,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08092657,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9984052,0.0004293434,0.0003233808,0.00004954173,0.0005963133,0.0001961904],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9961228,0.002521815,0.0006311281,0.000120063,0.0005400574,0.00006415888],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.002121444,0.0004328162,0.004877938,0.0002595109,0.001739694,0.00001369828,0.4129393,0.04325476,0.0008401878,0.402044,0.09197757,0.03949915],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001219324,0.0001090561,0.0001551848,0.00004527268,0.0002236971,0.000125159,0.1012262,0.00005030358,0.001118163,0.0006132928,0.8961425,0.00006931996],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.4481244,0.003436737,0.0002626588,0.4524549,0.0001941761,0.0004197285,0.00001205493,0.000004095237,0.09509125],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9957416,0.0007024074,0.00007376957,0.002792657,0.0003528645,9.146335e-7,9.94156e-8,0.000003787108,0.0003318992],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8041649,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9482923,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002355822,0.00004824484,0.00008844149,0.00001424945,0.0004749243,0.00003273829,0.0001939478,0.00002497839,0.00004563905],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008393072,0.00002703415,0.00001438066,0.00007261102,0.0002555031,0.0002887373,0.00002069193,0.0001779699,7.852302e-7],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006636493,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005164253,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0209285,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03903581,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9990942,0.0002044381,0.0002106294,0.00004612951,0.0003191854,0.0001253579],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.997729,0.001399081,0.0003943549,0.00007769122,0.0003296415,0.00007023253],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.002912845,0.0003277637,0.001134703,0.0003558332,0.0005689614,0.0000346884,0.6337016,0.0003024721,0.002137542,0.1338865,0.2000027,0.02463439],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001199018,0.00005034058,0.0001404852,0.00001774258,0.00006109109,0.00004113813,0.04236078,0.00008755069,0.0001281019,0.001024319,0.9559203,0.00004819438],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.6907519,0.03792961,0.00001272659,0.1633219,0.0002095916,0.0002401793,0.000004790228,0.000005552002,0.1075238],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9846417,0.01103177,0.0000169597,0.0002859373,0.00006981094,4.880093e-7,2.523018e-8,0.000003432588,0.003949884],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.7559176,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9855912,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01998522,0.0001364196,0.0001895912,0.00006156661,0.002394431,0.000677555,0.00058094,0.00009939205,0.00002021467],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004889758,0.00006444092,0.00004124544,0.0004964715,0.0003088996,0.001180729,0.00001620912,0.000741029,0.00002123036],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009884517,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001654731,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1488037,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2705648,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9960679,0.002021051,0.0004750966,0.0001104003,0.0008620453,0.0004634427],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9948679,0.003341252,0.0008189593,0.00015909,0.0006322474,0.0001806005],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.002041175,0.0005721077,0.002093187,0.000216451,0.0006546756,0.0006034914,0.7581272,0.00127756,0.00005497714,0.1462397,0.02626544,0.06185395],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002535199,0.00008925123,0.00007923482,0.00005147436,0.0001331259,0.0003616211,0.1064329,0.000007175919,0.00003668622,0.008267919,0.8841837,0.0001033526],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.07556617,0.02910632,0.00005861951,0.2602692,0.001018785,0.001025612,0.000002244974,0.00001292703,0.6329402],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.986212,0.009816175,0.00003232877,0.003322052,0.0002800052,0.000002697312,1.109585e-7,0.00001040391,0.0003242108],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9106458,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9989043,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001130658,0.00005388453,0.0001177355,0.00005347773,0.0001289744,0.0000458871,0.00005328248,0.00003606777,0.00001557076],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009918823,0.00003847032,0.00001589464,0.00009368535,0.00003906014,0.0003322632,0.00001505111,0.0001327182,0.00000879067],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000007102185,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00001253075,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0000334218,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000001787038,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994767,0.0000270586,0.0003186064,0.00006061968,0.00004533919,0.00007167931],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988901,0.0003075936,0.0006604738,0.00004403357,0.00007475234,0.00002301525],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_scores_codex":[0.006272797,0.0004991252,0.3746462,0.000541255,0.0004459314,0.00004387927,0.01309414,0.004113015,0.001141221,0.5018454,0.006514965,0.09084208],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001209397,0.0002103029,0.2033551,0.0002361037,0.0001016391,0.0008462285,0.001092567,0.002449479,0.0004612877,0.6237359,0.1659855,0.0003165212],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9607105,0.01097638,0.000399032,0.009004275,0.0001517648,0.00005689924,0.000002199075,0.00000414863,0.01869477],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9981024,0.0006849698,0.0004275984,0.0002636843,0.0002066412,1.634213e-7,8.381515e-7,0.000005348615,0.000308374],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1712911,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1568774,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004400945,0.00007894201,0.0001902295,0.00007136502,0.0001903134,0.00007839679,0.0003234622,0.00005740646,0.0002843774],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000738603,0.00004523306,0.00005440662,0.0006379928,0.0002113395,0.001657935,0.000004506863,0.0006189082,0.000004243542],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00001673066,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000770195,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.006229106,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002150114,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9980676,0.0007656849,0.0004795938,0.00006130848,0.0004373813,0.000188482],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9965217,0.00228433,0.0006793927,0.0001130361,0.0003638844,0.00003771526],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.004628918,0.001831271,0.00166856,0.0002458894,0.001194964,0.000009318665,0.8822886,0.001906058,0.0007673348,0.05089944,0.005921011,0.04863863],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005041053,0.0003182353,0.0007223277,0.0000606363,0.001026069,0.0001847596,0.05942561,0.00006453542,0.0003150069,0.00421351,0.9330376,0.0001275969],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.772582,0.001841057,0.00004433653,0.1758288,0.00009389409,0.0002997047,0.000002652632,0.000003094365,0.04930443],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9932668,0.004810366,0.00004453996,0.001223558,0.00008499688,0.000001387722,4.681894e-7,0.000005290564,0.0005626415],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9271166,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9416586,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002499713,0.00003980137,0.00006694955,0.00003249121,0.0003681501,0.00009883045,0.0001363054,0.00003032085,0.00004013268],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001448113,0.00002240303,0.00001204617,0.0002394183,0.000234914,0.0009536681,0.00001426039,0.000287711,0.000001016527],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000009978373,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006222897,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0004458404,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00003824655,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9991035,0.0002455355,0.0002125491,0.00003620215,0.0003346993,0.0000675271],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9972743,0.001084435,0.0006718611,0.00003237253,0.000914336,0.00002268368],"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":[0.001146013,0.0006531649,0.02333955,0.0002598255,0.0003419677,0.000005628451,0.3975647,0.001548034,0.008402109,0.5137383,0.04049619,0.01250453],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006458552,0.00009722718,0.01150693,0.0001631619,0.0002533752,0.000384112,0.1152944,0.0001058696,0.002627634,0.07603443,0.7927107,0.0001763244],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.6440966,0.00138666,0.0001173755,0.1756154,0.0002408098,0.0001269919,0.000002330104,0.000004234641,0.1784097],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9982191,0.0002307597,0.0001228473,0.000778812,0.000167116,3.096964e-7,1.434429e-7,0.000002165705,0.0004787171],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.7522144,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.283155,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00306618,0.0001041885,0.0002108418,0.00002947457,0.0005573696,0.0001012695,0.000191801,0.00004349788,0.000005414533],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007885941,0.00006092883,0.000007041594,0.0001732925,0.0003132594,0.0006634544,0.00005763735,0.0004175409,1.626242e-7],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00001986617,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006588176,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4720213,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4253901,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9987302,0.0002975132,0.0002783366,0.0001121471,0.0003818839,0.0001999196],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9977377,0.001469889,0.0004214686,0.00005972859,0.0002153157,0.00009587732],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0009551994,0.00001470383,0.5738633,0.0008549717,0.0001082545,0.00003799396,0.2512101,0.00007045249,0.0000643364,0.000382501,0.0000648251,0.1723734],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001569752,0.0007845219,0.5851845,0.001723307,0.001236872,0.000725854,0.345518,0.0005527862,0.0004339303,0.05311029,0.008461209,0.0006990185],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9757463,0.01548161,0.00001551991,0.007258737,0.00004170499,0.0001375288,8.128224e-7,0.00000275193,0.001315017],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9925724,0.006817162,0.0001152486,0.0002396514,0.0002386418,7.710883e-7,8.329149e-8,0.000005607115,0.00001049675],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1716744,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.585095,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0031347,0.0000758298,0.0001253327,0.00004346356,0.0003132726,0.00009679585,0.0002436064,0.00003138689,0.000005412155],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001350407,0.00005223821,0.00001527701,0.0001422925,0.00004036043,0.0003285512,0.00001905581,0.0002336614,0.000005575724],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007045555,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004678383,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05579328,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03493951,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9987051,0.0003085881,0.0002134614,0.00008748597,0.000507145,0.0001781733],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982116,0.0008949552,0.0002494728,0.00007826091,0.0003584732,0.0002072919],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.01278007,0.0004354297,0.00031087,0.0005310398,0.0002343774,0.00004369,0.5451239,0.1163151,0.0007826819,0.0306306,0.03333609,0.2594761],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002941785,0.0007224729,0.0003999257,0.0003969004,0.0002452387,0.0000744492,0.07727876,0.001198711,0.0005635911,0.001602232,0.9169177,0.0003057859],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.7929613,0.0004731788,0.01646558,0.07119099,0.000551533,0.0004248903,0.000002121512,0.00001520921,0.1179152],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9951571,0.0001907838,0.000449204,0.003792549,0.0002029144,8.344979e-7,1.708042e-7,0.000006008082,0.0002004312],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8835816,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9826703,"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","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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009060234,0.0001251598,0.0002553599,0.0000829031,0.000436834,0.0002701514,0.0003103272,0.00008730861,0.00002112522],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005713218,0.0000812691,0.00003869744,0.0004918131,0.0001464181,0.001475374,0.00006427267,0.000409714,0.00008107166],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005661286,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001023326,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001795627,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0001746952,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9976795,0.0005277579,0.0004924377,0.0001209741,0.0008503151,0.0003290086],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9966387,0.0008926511,0.0006803095,0.0001138258,0.001212582,0.0004619299],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.007548728,0.0006911844,0.002266789,0.0004708642,0.0007302668,0.0005839176,0.6594687,0.002055286,0.0009957,0.02237169,0.2418598,0.06095706],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004108136,0.0002877084,0.00002030976,0.0001250313,0.000180893,0.0004968868,0.07849803,0.00003044591,0.0003504063,0.00406051,0.9153735,0.0001654653],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.2461193,0.00639745,0.01016235,0.3166722,0.001623788,0.0009783468,0.000002553646,0.00008156439,0.4179625],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9937088,0.001080613,0.001096625,0.002120781,0.001154019,0.000001177026,9.726562e-8,0.00001551438,0.0008224045],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7475895,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6839668,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}