{"meta":{"page":1,"per_page":50,"max_per_page":100,"total":30,"total_is_capped":false,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":30,"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":"970805d9bc07","filters":{"venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference"}},"results":[{"id":"W3121686399","doi":"","title":"Courting Constitutional Danger: Constitutional Conventions and the Legacy of the Patriation Reference","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","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":"Justiciability; Supreme court; Law; Political question; Political science; Politics; Veto; Constitutional court; Constitution; Constitutional law; Power (physics); Convention; Law and economics; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Adam M. Dodek","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.09414513468919772,"gpt":0.3136960553675037,"spread":0.2195509206783059,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01501985,0.0002287635,0.0004895185,0.001903953,0.01505587,0.01637296,0.001750127,0.01093255,0.002823228],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02810676,0.0004034873,0.000379215,0.00192445,0.0616009,0.01314322,0.006084811,0.01712273,0.0002642255],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01425142,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01528405,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07856303,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07718217,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9854994,0.007483,0.000429298,0.001371106,0.003522347,0.001694957],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9852328,0.009930039,0.001066709,0.001415986,0.001756385,0.0005981628],"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":[0.000002927223,0.000002873109,0.0001457265,0.000005689239,0.000001645963,0.00008416481,0.004467991,0.00005881291,0.00004418405,0.9910574,0.001767543,0.002361044],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002640941,0.00002362459,0.001292451,0.0001563468,0.00001001105,0.000184242,0.00641976,0.0004259978,0.000325142,0.8586347,0.1324491,0.00005220413],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1351694,0.01476699,0.01377404,0.2744,0.00138086,0.00005398722,0.00007912226,0.00007493446,0.5603006],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9716393,0.00173122,0.001036094,0.0104299,0.0006164498,0.00002565646,0.00002189258,0.00002899574,0.01447052],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9857486,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1562115,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1529430945","doi":"","title":"In Harm’s Way: The Limits to Legislating Criminal Law","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Harm principle; Law; Constitutionality; Supreme court; Harm; Charter; Political science; Legislature; Criminal law; Discretion; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Q.C. Roslyn J. Levine","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1159888078210758,"gpt":0.3727432290864227,"spread":0.2567544212653468,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.05008745,0.0005215455,0.001067452,0.002381387,0.01050273,0.01966592,0.003752086,0.01503893,0.002666812],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0774781,0.00109187,0.001308089,0.001450264,0.0702915,0.0179976,0.008348547,0.02170849,0.0006691986],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007281939,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01474371,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01989735,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02119125,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9389838,0.02998448,0.003083132,0.006839948,0.01721939,0.003889246],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.941263,0.04408525,0.002820978,0.005469927,0.005025512,0.001335366],"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":[0.000007697471,0.00001311766,0.0002058355,0.000024741,0.000006121819,0.0000291276,0.001869194,0.0002354733,0.00009488638,0.989262,0.002928355,0.005323451],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002028282,0.00003020944,0.000559037,0.0002655564,0.00001719582,0.00005863993,0.001986028,0.0004300356,0.0003718584,0.9267438,0.06947749,0.00003985852],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.04793309,0.0153823,0.08109795,0.2786516,0.001895092,0.0001780114,0.0001725041,0.0001725449,0.574517],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8984649,0.003810047,0.01962655,0.05476608,0.001764753,0.0005613477,0.00009696855,0.0001280896,0.02078126],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05008745,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2648909,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125451397","doi":"","title":"Does Canada Need a Political Questions Doctrine","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"Supreme court; Politics; Doctrine; Political question; Constitution; Political science; Jurisdiction; Law; Judicial review; Law and economics; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Q.C. D. Geoffrey Cowper","is_ca":false},{"name":"Lorne Sossin","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04879384909013636,"gpt":0.3012166523245982,"spread":0.2524228032344618,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006029129,0.0003294663,0.0006768439,0.001186289,0.02318799,0.01660454,0.001954268,0.008991673,0.01575881],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01763544,0.0003913085,0.0006417913,0.001937912,0.0313378,0.008224285,0.003564151,0.009779881,0.001479392],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09198812,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.186485,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9655656,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9758933,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9912546,0.001081627,0.0001802402,0.00104866,0.003387217,0.003047713],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9893512,0.003551783,0.0004899951,0.0006705638,0.004108259,0.001828073],"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":[0.000006712535,0.000005314054,0.0003874753,0.00001659357,0.000003189733,0.00006964808,0.002206007,0.00006148408,0.00006102325,0.9795175,0.01392095,0.003744226],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003913667,0.00001586034,0.00287897,0.0002346669,0.00003019207,0.0001170719,0.01034807,0.0003704489,0.000398782,0.2538058,0.7316801,0.00008092666],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02331322,0.003216375,0.002989797,0.3856679,0.0009532544,0.00005879059,0.0003549664,0.0000679821,0.5833776],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7797576,0.003300473,0.002499159,0.0828488,0.0005117543,0.00006372509,0.0001679554,0.0001216406,0.130729],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09198812,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6674237,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124991181","doi":"","title":"“Please, Draw Me a Field of Jurisdiction”: Regulating Securities, Securing Federalism","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","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":"Supreme court; Jurisdiction; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Federalism; Law and economics; Private placement; Law; Intervention (counseling); State (computer science); Economics; Political science; Business; Politics; Finance; Commission; Investment banking","authors":[{"name":"Jean Marie Leclair","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0324370615143844,"gpt":0.2752591216567208,"spread":0.2428220601423364,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005457388,0.0002693923,0.0002939936,0.001038934,0.01728099,0.009150619,0.001441861,0.006436892,0.002114371],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007815471,0.0004600124,0.0004001334,0.001147651,0.04362347,0.004323908,0.002795613,0.006594999,0.0003306803],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03860831,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07624263,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8299462,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8875893,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9945532,0.001562965,0.0001278396,0.0005283532,0.001615872,0.001611789],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9979467,0.0009718008,0.0001098626,0.0001674887,0.0005620159,0.0002422154],"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":[0.000002970804,0.000003617342,0.0002283454,0.000009743101,0.000002097538,0.00007669246,0.002607276,0.00007936605,0.0001140214,0.9839023,0.01046354,0.002509996],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004729139,0.00003015395,0.003474544,0.0003224631,0.00004100088,0.0002322654,0.008212774,0.0005707741,0.0008591868,0.4298641,0.5562773,0.00006793781],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.04514976,0.01372217,0.01166041,0.342283,0.0009630459,0.0001350171,0.0001722518,0.0001078942,0.5858065],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8690352,0.00482626,0.004625184,0.06965583,0.0004467191,0.00008265924,0.00005258983,0.00003500283,0.05124057],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1700538,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3421106,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121498883","doi":"","title":"Reflecting Culture: Polygamy and the Charter","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal 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 Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Political science; Charter; Politics; Sociology; Fundamental rights; Human rights; Dignity; Constitutionality","authors":[{"name":"Carissima Mathen","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08995414543215899,"gpt":0.3667065384014886,"spread":0.2767523929693296,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007405954,0.0002354333,0.0002800256,0.001187896,0.01386288,0.01126309,0.00128058,0.003351742,0.002629586],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009937638,0.0002531993,0.0001823146,0.001816117,0.04240775,0.005614928,0.004333158,0.007478195,0.0002175627],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01539747,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02746016,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5693581,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6411452,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9907858,0.004646809,0.0001582688,0.0004973346,0.002451593,0.001460125],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9959261,0.002262994,0.0003148239,0.0002538916,0.0008241016,0.0004180346],"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":[0.000003562351,0.000007581953,0.0004914338,0.00002510562,0.000002192904,0.0001251103,0.01849696,0.00005642983,0.00004504276,0.9533953,0.01643722,0.01091395],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002405709,0.00004023382,0.007369624,0.0007545291,0.00001853171,0.0002854226,0.08245754,0.0002583166,0.0003562353,0.251014,0.6573523,0.00006931867],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1003109,0.03738946,0.003024678,0.3028014,0.002442934,0.00007026565,0.00009265961,0.00002596249,0.5538418],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9244491,0.01184224,0.0006374814,0.02997769,0.0004638614,0.00004695381,0.00003020807,0.00002686705,0.03252557],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4306419,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8663561,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125528295","doi":"","title":"Religious Commitment And Identity: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":"Conscience; Charter; Law; Freedom of religion; Plaintiff; Identity (music); Sociology; Political science; Human rights; Philosophy","authors":[{"name":"Richard Moon","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0393560014225646,"gpt":0.3339593780839302,"spread":0.2946033766613656,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004326927,0.0002889302,0.0005144459,0.0007746145,0.02294237,0.006190892,0.002515741,0.01149369,0.00898213],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006476719,0.0004773349,0.000585584,0.000634574,0.007742418,0.002471981,0.005870304,0.01491216,0.0005903632],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01603829,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01621114,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4653637,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6821637,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9955572,0.000615282,0.00008804557,0.0004522877,0.001349654,0.001937531],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9973317,0.0009197154,0.0002037473,0.000155548,0.0003806707,0.001008488],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001728455,0.0004003779,0.01642844,0.0001332423,0.00005197956,0.01200084,0.04348205,0.0003529563,0.001901995,0.8033191,0.09657585,0.0251803],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000449296,0.0005517604,0.06736954,0.001125082,0.0001365625,0.003110165,0.06219024,0.002068786,0.002980363,0.06317366,0.7965487,0.0002958619],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.3709385,0.003073604,0.0005927643,0.1250791,0.000982541,0.0001740317,0.0001217466,0.00003878831,0.4989989],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8202499,0.0008941342,0.0002647995,0.06174553,0.0003892569,0.0001165928,0.00005174079,0.00001463818,0.1162734],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5346364,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9253099,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121617990","doi":"","title":"Justice Bertha Wilson and the Politics of Feminism","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"Feminism; Solidarity; Politics; Economic Justice; Gender studies; Sociology; Law; Political science","authors":[{"name":"Constance Backhouse","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06052011829524361,"gpt":0.297520579817034,"spread":0.2370004615217904,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004827588,0.0003177816,0.0003790466,0.001772686,0.03815331,0.008546379,0.001585369,0.006717069,0.003426346],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007673982,0.0003538785,0.0002833993,0.001505729,0.03733948,0.002585526,0.002868273,0.006445341,0.0003240649],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05008483,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05654087,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8922606,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9465012,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9923422,0.001986955,0.00007602406,0.0005875399,0.002616516,0.002390779],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9958324,0.002119356,0.0001977702,0.0001128473,0.0009743659,0.0007632387],"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":[0.00001549697,0.00001364632,0.0009826645,0.00003444434,0.000007200103,0.0003342571,0.01721278,0.0001225416,0.0002471566,0.7821363,0.1822462,0.01664738],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001196844,0.000009249307,0.003329837,0.0002453332,0.00001064441,0.0001343273,0.01672912,0.0001042345,0.0002755797,0.08544362,0.8936625,0.00004369941],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02276747,0.0384008,0.0006759529,0.5923612,0.001930892,0.00003024913,0.00005966462,0.00002517016,0.3437486],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7063398,0.01066819,0.0009948317,0.1218384,0.001463297,0.0000443721,0.0000248134,0.00006218688,0.1585641],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9499152,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3633926,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121255575","doi":"","title":"The Increasing Irrelevance of Section 1 of the Charter","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"Supreme court; Charter; Deference; Adjudication; Law; Political science; Section (typography); Standard of review; Context (archaeology); Law and economics; Sociology; History; Computer science","authors":[{"name":"Christopher D. Bredt","is_ca":false},{"name":"Adam M. Dodek","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0486803144265786,"gpt":0.309073950609987,"spread":0.2603936361834084,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01917345,0.0002831077,0.0006673104,0.001888356,0.008068675,0.01097276,0.002148142,0.003778945,0.003545548],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05577448,0.00043146,0.0005476622,0.00168686,0.02426504,0.004836465,0.003699981,0.009636955,0.0002810728],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02814387,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02728364,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3530971,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4533933,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9769936,0.003063123,0.0005915057,0.003273576,0.01275555,0.003322569],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.945922,0.02848978,0.008267806,0.003158579,0.01290538,0.0012566],"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":[0.00002078187,0.00001311765,0.004326677,0.00004865291,0.00001070441,0.0002076344,0.006667439,0.0004363628,0.0005710906,0.9643233,0.005226179,0.01814818],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006646477,0.0003683432,0.08169075,0.000867421,0.0001376214,0.0009689349,0.01328443,0.002643362,0.006700753,0.4221567,0.4707524,0.0003627132],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.4055058,0.006002789,0.01590475,0.07451905,0.001244942,0.00008963982,0.0001981413,0.0001976482,0.4963373],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9738931,0.001042156,0.001227886,0.007046412,0.0003570311,0.00001666527,0.00005647409,0.0000316257,0.01632858],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9718561,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7020836,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1513405201","doi":"","title":"Charter Remedies in 2001: Proceeding Cautiously","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"Charter; Law; Supreme court; Political science; Constitution; Jurisprudence; Legislature; Sanctions","authors":[{"name":"Q.C. David Sgayias","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.09502493034315738,"gpt":0.2753597019387649,"spread":0.1803347715956075,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0372561,0.001129474,0.001466079,0.003884849,0.01643494,0.02316061,0.005536272,0.05280617,0.008225176],"category_scores_gemma":[0.09499227,0.002318149,0.002201843,0.002551251,0.01222901,0.01135006,0.008245724,0.04074408,0.002668838],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03324036,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1108708,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3132654,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3822828,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9399418,0.01023091,0.00524963,0.00796808,0.02921207,0.00739754],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9711062,0.01256396,0.001763927,0.00414997,0.009000929,0.001414941],"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":[0.00002149802,0.0001324066,0.0003974213,0.00009708338,0.00002197369,0.000782523,0.001840133,0.001260075,0.0007708843,0.7779719,0.1890096,0.02769445],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007693049,0.0000626796,0.001074753,0.0004550851,0.00003282671,0.0002982302,0.001096964,0.0009573739,0.001097947,0.07051117,0.9241474,0.0001886605],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01622957,0.01201056,0.05107106,0.2664723,0.02068957,0.0032419,0.0008238679,0.001138536,0.6283227],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.170619,0.008669548,0.04857249,0.2991844,0.004698722,0.001507646,0.0009195107,0.0004465005,0.4653823],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3132654,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6228839,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2159087817","doi":"","title":"A Corner Turned: Supreme Court of Canada Decisions of the Year Past","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Supreme court; Law; Assertion; Nova scotia; Heading (navigation); Political science; High Court; Articulation (sociology); Sociology; Engineering; Ethnology","authors":[{"name":"Q.C. Charlotte A. Bell","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04762893357110932,"gpt":0.2971402218199873,"spread":0.249511288248878,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004194816,0.0003763678,0.0004341084,0.001793531,0.0297864,0.01309867,0.002464096,0.008875271,0.004913976],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01190067,0.0005712403,0.0006771351,0.003130491,0.01024439,0.002569279,0.0020715,0.01136895,0.000433073],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1005114,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1377092,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9855664,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9947413,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9917786,0.0007653274,0.0001644346,0.0007780149,0.003775267,0.002738294],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9948716,0.001682842,0.0001908038,0.0001815997,0.002198525,0.000874621],"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":[0.00004072556,0.00002863667,0.003361496,0.00007881977,0.00003066306,0.00112379,0.01104843,0.0002704846,0.0004568363,0.6665844,0.2970606,0.01991523],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003807569,0.00002779579,0.01459054,0.0004569359,0.00007977373,0.0003043463,0.01528489,0.0004909335,0.0009491696,0.02825242,0.9393049,0.0002202627],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.07031875,0.02696575,0.001345545,0.3939819,0.003867978,0.0001292695,0.00139316,0.00008741522,0.5019103],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6120654,0.01127352,0.001687119,0.1485767,0.0006325982,0.00008270019,0.0005021733,0.00008188323,0.225098],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1005114,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7292645,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122749857","doi":"","title":"Section 15(1) at the Supreme Court 2001-2002: Caution and Conflict in Defining “The Most Difficult Right”","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Supreme court; Section (typography); Law; Political science; High Court; Theme (computing); Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Sonia Lawrence","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06232311638796742,"gpt":0.3079249124741876,"spread":0.2456017960862202,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03662193,0.0006748108,0.001662026,0.002332052,0.02534886,0.02562296,0.007901126,0.03790253,0.002459534],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06401545,0.001650484,0.001276499,0.003197151,0.02294869,0.008649949,0.00515174,0.04297159,0.0009617704],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02873483,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04725352,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4285059,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6145292,"domain_scores_codex":[0.953804,0.01586206,0.003476958,0.006097031,0.01507685,0.005683245],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9612347,0.02877943,0.001273138,0.00115159,0.005956568,0.001604487],"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":[0.00002903181,0.00002571048,0.001073987,0.0001153084,0.00002516179,0.0005009393,0.01338113,0.0001944518,0.0002802198,0.813913,0.161449,0.009012094],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000111834,0.00005722578,0.006082452,0.002035628,0.0001290256,0.0006271673,0.01791626,0.0009597852,0.001550915,0.2631105,0.7071316,0.0002875127],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03587692,0.01228331,0.005441103,0.7317673,0.004753202,0.0001622896,0.0005159709,0.0001001064,0.2090997],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.3217594,0.003067715,0.005937452,0.622362,0.002909138,0.0002927881,0.0002000773,0.0001289683,0.04334255],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4285059,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8520234,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122760032","doi":"","title":"Accommodation Without Compromise: Comment on Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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":"Compromise; Law; Duty; Constitutionality; Supreme court; Charter; Political science; Ambivalence; Accommodation; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Richard Moon","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04245859910319512,"gpt":0.3342816058467091,"spread":0.291823006743514,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005949289,0.000709109,0.0007404728,0.001156301,0.02951908,0.007896283,0.007587585,0.03617217,0.008407943],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01330513,0.001386717,0.001108703,0.001908314,0.009577443,0.002705276,0.003353952,0.0286076,0.001295827],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04089177,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06683683,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9270121,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9657597,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9927562,0.0007228914,0.0001987351,0.0008021207,0.002847306,0.002672774],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9947448,0.002735913,0.0001828778,0.0002018316,0.001320339,0.0008143105],"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":[0.00008838685,0.00008287188,0.003162997,0.0001108796,0.00003260492,0.003500607,0.01151205,0.0004106642,0.0008544757,0.2421323,0.7266505,0.01146163],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009514017,0.00004912384,0.01038795,0.0003793519,0.00008126432,0.0004746926,0.01416672,0.0004888331,0.0007717703,0.01479138,0.9580833,0.0002303751],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","genre_scores_codex":[0.04328655,0.007562034,0.0008474679,0.6039702,0.004419102,0.0001972713,0.0004540625,0.0001615158,0.3391018],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.1418647,0.002502028,0.0005357702,0.7147471,0.001590579,0.0001214162,0.0001565315,0.00007918745,0.1384027],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","teacher_disagreement_score":0.07298785,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2966919,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3126007625","doi":"","title":"Judging in Secular Times: Max Weber and the Rise of Proportionality","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Proportionality (law); Jurisprudence; Churning; Bureaucracy; Law; Sociology; Metaphysics; Political science; Law and economics; Epistemology; Economics; Philosophy","authors":[{"name":"David Schneiderman","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03660460054409996,"gpt":0.3008139629620157,"spread":0.2642093624179157,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00806312,0.0003518525,0.0003617062,0.002301211,0.007457911,0.008226526,0.0007178105,0.002821973,0.003066972],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01318919,0.0003242967,0.0002230401,0.001730299,0.04489522,0.01152403,0.002607211,0.004228743,0.0003524734],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008357486,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00343172,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01838344,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02010396,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9957978,0.00232661,0.0001256085,0.0005004421,0.0008865676,0.0003631516],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9941899,0.004274468,0.0002874038,0.0003676196,0.0005404158,0.0003402135],"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":[0.00000197923,0.000001725972,0.00004100682,0.00000369336,4.785663e-7,0.0000139802,0.001263398,0.00003333551,0.000008464986,0.9944594,0.002197083,0.001975476],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00000483128,0.00000333899,0.000135141,0.00004141157,0.000001155315,0.00001867385,0.0008923816,0.00014732,0.00004800794,0.9411395,0.05756091,0.000007394104],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03594058,0.02988822,0.01137297,0.1575795,0.001822407,0.00003364545,0.00004678234,0.0000537108,0.7632623],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9487621,0.005431641,0.003572963,0.00731374,0.00145209,0.00003572525,0.0000159496,0.00005290403,0.03336283],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.01838344,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06063807,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1524631000","doi":"","title":"The Greening Garden: Equality Rights Under the Canadian Constitution","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Discrimination and Equality Law","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":"Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Criticism; Law; Constitution; Immigration; Political science; Section (typography); Term (time); Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Q.C. D. Geoffrey Cowper","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.09879287598793027,"gpt":0.3556795435095479,"spread":0.2568866675216176,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004207089,0.000534842,0.0005267921,0.001867081,0.02644424,0.01122544,0.00239551,0.009852656,0.007397322],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006937225,0.0005354689,0.0005342677,0.00279066,0.02282055,0.00346319,0.003808789,0.007534162,0.0005220648],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06692471,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1340045,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9861521,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9943258,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9903145,0.0008292441,0.0001879222,0.0007989157,0.004741866,0.003127454],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983861,0.0006615869,0.00007813049,0.0001122047,0.000510428,0.0002515096],"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":[0.000008308039,0.000005625598,0.0003442563,0.00002638844,0.000003554031,0.0001672187,0.002924891,0.00009113876,0.0001728901,0.9729238,0.016304,0.007027837],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004647582,0.00002024595,0.006131603,0.0003294897,0.00003891423,0.0001770444,0.006227078,0.0003638147,0.0006000213,0.1522781,0.8336763,0.0001109576],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03377495,0.01324611,0.00371201,0.08463484,0.0013943,0.0001119607,0.0005516264,0.00006113962,0.8625129],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7252159,0.008412442,0.00386272,0.05389974,0.000464291,0.0001080048,0.0002376812,0.00007849203,0.2077207],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9330753,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.485575,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125352381","doi":"","title":"\"Chartering\" in the Shadow of Lochner: Guindon, Goodwin and the Criminal-Administrative Distinction at the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Shadow (psychology); Psychology","authors":[{"name":"Steven Penney","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06865969122698284,"gpt":0.3234238030788797,"spread":0.2547641118518969,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01139722,0.0005383531,0.001052802,0.002223713,0.04173919,0.02332929,0.004130489,0.01649883,0.005469119],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025141,0.0007988487,0.0005644215,0.003687529,0.05369797,0.009586267,0.003954831,0.02239524,0.0004289508],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0872822,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1920771,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9783679,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9923948,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9897378,0.002734285,0.0002239909,0.001415098,0.002997197,0.002891612],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.987901,0.005133069,0.0004731651,0.0004748703,0.00461695,0.001400996],"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":[0.00002105969,0.00001893212,0.0009829778,0.00003624615,0.00001333086,0.0001157874,0.0120621,0.0001798146,0.00008845818,0.8033575,0.1738826,0.009241196],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000692743,0.00001706758,0.008130263,0.0009336387,0.00008921544,0.0001264512,0.03541718,0.0006094462,0.0006520002,0.2656064,0.6881005,0.0002484267],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.02700027,0.03701509,0.002633642,0.8119639,0.003424403,0.00006592424,0.0002856257,0.00005969645,0.1175514],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6907744,0.01208306,0.002166302,0.2078665,0.002254711,0.00007208005,0.00009441432,0.0002250074,0.08446337],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0872822,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6332796,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121192050","doi":"","title":"Judging the Limits of Cooperative Federalism","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Federalism; Adjudication; Appeal; Metaphor; Supreme court; Constitution; Political science; Law; Separation of powers; Commerce Clause; Law and economics; Constitutional law; Context (archaeology); Judicial review; Sociology; Politics; Philosophy","authors":[{"name":"Eric M. Adams","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.09536380529066056,"gpt":0.3499702702630056,"spread":0.254606464972345,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02770401,0.0002931332,0.0008403591,0.003909177,0.01371153,0.01047538,0.002678032,0.006132477,0.003758809],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07931246,0.0004235786,0.0005198058,0.002056988,0.03892539,0.009524752,0.006254578,0.00770027,0.0003414205],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02554275,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03366061,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3750116,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4775226,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9750743,0.007900866,0.001037697,0.002521726,0.00926657,0.004198852],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9437304,0.03635689,0.002227784,0.003104856,0.01207232,0.002507817],"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":[0.00001117614,0.000004620418,0.000886573,0.00002183694,0.000005877691,0.00007604009,0.002579567,0.0001573839,0.00009352859,0.991003,0.002250831,0.002909488],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004524487,0.00002685419,0.005918538,0.0004742388,0.00003759254,0.0001281131,0.01134773,0.001366558,0.0005112266,0.879513,0.1005754,0.00005560057],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1371068,0.00552221,0.02008917,0.06575581,0.0005483393,0.0001418784,0.0001990736,0.00007678368,0.7705599],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9888735,0.0006114766,0.002162888,0.004086272,0.0001432911,0.00009047287,0.00004042421,0.00002443663,0.00396707],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6249884,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7456576,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123816104","doi":"","title":"What Butler Did","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Saskatchewan","funders":"","keywords":"Harm; Objectification; Supreme court; Criminal law; Criminal code; Law; Context (archaeology); Criminology; Psychology; Political science; Sociology; History","authors":[{"name":"Michael Plaxton","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1049482515325766,"gpt":0.3652403799615271,"spread":0.2602921284289504,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003036202,0.0004791446,0.0003728583,0.0008137705,0.006607088,0.01197377,0.001339149,0.007464694,0.0474227],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01175759,0.0004034673,0.0004267303,0.0006424512,0.006479711,0.007370195,0.004936458,0.007525318,0.01706173],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007310833,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008812229,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0356617,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.05993272,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9940624,0.001803744,0.0001689374,0.001730146,0.001380202,0.0008546129],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9959111,0.00098985,0.0002138775,0.000580318,0.001357373,0.000947434],"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":[0.00004701268,0.00003899291,0.0009683176,0.0001638185,0.00001372475,0.0002583524,0.00591132,0.00005043302,0.0003121762,0.5556539,0.3985175,0.0380644],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000007840482,0.000008947822,0.000195166,0.0001010612,0.000006400839,0.0001064857,0.001333742,0.00002116785,0.0001565758,0.01425283,0.9838002,0.00000959625],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.0055214,0.01182649,0.003859787,0.3485104,0.01535489,0.0001143679,0.0004629151,0.0001546601,0.614195],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.08171605,0.004548454,0.002394509,0.1867035,0.002710372,0.0001247072,0.0002783322,0.0002035132,0.7213206],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0474227,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1586447,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123119869","doi":"","title":"Furthering Substantive Equality Through Administrative Law: Charter Values in Education","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"Charter; Obligation; Law; Administrative law; Political science; Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Realm; Context (archaeology); Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Angela Cameron","is_ca":false},{"name":"Paul Daly","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1417581799185666,"gpt":0.394159776083472,"spread":0.2524015961649054,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02202635,0.00047083,0.0005174986,0.002549195,0.01536463,0.02179872,0.002351682,0.005267999,0.003409013],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0235894,0.0003467949,0.000490639,0.002638736,0.09284648,0.01572213,0.01101009,0.01130906,0.0004690071],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0325214,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04738226,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1318738,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1878264,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9790509,0.01229106,0.0005163069,0.0008127801,0.00443355,0.00289533],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9815555,0.01208175,0.001226518,0.001363187,0.002325216,0.001447863],"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":[0.000001794548,0.000005670738,0.00009029813,0.00001114672,5.999295e-7,0.00002510396,0.005604665,0.00009557251,0.00001790123,0.9883454,0.0009122816,0.00488966],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001093599,0.00002298548,0.0007186477,0.0003192519,0.000006369617,0.00005504089,0.01170434,0.000709217,0.0003294863,0.8581143,0.1279713,0.00003803358],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03371726,0.007060407,0.1186766,0.1643942,0.001000792,0.0001599787,0.00004366674,0.0001373404,0.6748097],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9411288,0.002929916,0.02625835,0.009438976,0.000360453,0.0001104104,0.00002437811,0.00006259787,0.01968613],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8681263,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2622123,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1704118755","doi":"","title":"Equality Rights And Social Benefit Programs","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Supreme court; Statute; Petitioner; Law; Statutory law; Political science; Premise; Discretion; Law and economics; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Q.C. D. Geoffrey Cowper","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0884142195885654,"gpt":0.350251721995125,"spread":0.2618375024065596,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01069642,0.0003680114,0.0005690611,0.001081885,0.008204481,0.007091981,0.001500053,0.00675674,0.008734821],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01257299,0.0003485155,0.0004806121,0.001089392,0.03228532,0.004526629,0.006978406,0.005690719,0.0005680299],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01217842,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01616932,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.09416924,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1019285,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9812577,0.007217407,0.0004315506,0.002010931,0.004647255,0.004435123],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9955279,0.002149418,0.0003491195,0.0007087158,0.0007881813,0.0004766078],"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":[0.000002273306,0.000003476867,0.00008671956,0.000004373763,0.000001377543,0.00001124277,0.0002706537,0.00004696623,0.00001541391,0.9973997,0.0006840525,0.001473735],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000460577,0.00003613311,0.001960021,0.0001429905,0.00001716621,0.00006574955,0.0008829528,0.0005211761,0.0002920031,0.8945523,0.1014616,0.00002178007],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03556492,0.002026619,0.01014231,0.04368583,0.0001860013,0.00009020654,0.000134709,0.00003573021,0.9081337],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.930001,0.0007489672,0.002937362,0.01435865,0.0002589452,0.0002369006,0.0000682678,0.00002259044,0.05136734],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09416924,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1872423,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124858383","doi":"","title":"A False Start in Constitutionalizing Lawyer Loyalty in Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","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":"Law; Duty; Supreme court; Constitutionality; Principle of legality; Political science; Charter; Economic Justice; Common law; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Amy Salyzyn","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06657278010876357,"gpt":0.3278317341651744,"spread":0.2612589540564109,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01582002,0.0006242147,0.001204746,0.00177136,0.03926108,0.02273227,0.005574597,0.02557797,0.003469607],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02505211,0.001156659,0.001306357,0.002153171,0.03262641,0.007384606,0.006868047,0.02936221,0.0003316559],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1416803,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2231035,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9820107,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9904755,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9739538,0.004080169,0.000767033,0.002731017,0.008850632,0.009617291],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9874653,0.004897602,0.0004453463,0.0007358856,0.004053944,0.00240196],"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":[0.00001814889,0.00001557927,0.0007075872,0.00002583584,0.00001875348,0.0001323561,0.00449135,0.0001911245,0.0001558285,0.9784177,0.01243149,0.003394216],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002663785,0.0001754767,0.01298215,0.001142833,0.0003191995,0.0002338096,0.01961704,0.003590956,0.002122074,0.4604826,0.4982156,0.0008518684],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.1219365,0.01267241,0.01017832,0.4117637,0.002092584,0.0003239657,0.0006362904,0.0002537405,0.4401425],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8535033,0.00206043,0.003572631,0.09852711,0.0005575474,0.0001445194,0.0001165113,0.00009950676,0.04141833],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1416803,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9955292,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3126119881","doi":"","title":"Loyola High School v. Attorney General of Quebec: On Non-triviality and the Charter Value of Religious Freedom","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Triviality; Law; Value (mathematics); Political science; Mathematics; Statistics","authors":[{"name":"Howard Kislowicz","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03807678599711746,"gpt":0.3088288371846386,"spread":0.2707520511875212,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006053613,0.0002951847,0.0004864577,0.001472769,0.01568447,0.005987026,0.002667028,0.007871764,0.01196986],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01786029,0.0003406985,0.0005123467,0.001850429,0.009849903,0.002569088,0.001834538,0.008424709,0.0005916198],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05921816,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09823024,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9850236,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9961055,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9942152,0.001224571,0.0001520043,0.0002961007,0.001798318,0.002313751],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.983883,0.006450095,0.0007542302,0.0006892523,0.006338419,0.00188487],"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":[0.0001905233,0.00008421636,0.01971981,0.0001879005,0.00005716282,0.0007809591,0.00810735,0.0005180128,0.0005661905,0.6401787,0.3021221,0.02748705],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000402357,0.0001305456,0.2143971,0.002672733,0.0004455402,0.0003735541,0.03040943,0.001936084,0.002148632,0.08886933,0.6577852,0.0004294201],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.1289684,0.01110408,0.0007449483,0.230622,0.0007593042,0.0001476524,0.001314328,0.00005234205,0.626287],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8759038,0.003365989,0.0004041529,0.03694927,0.0002262684,0.00005809163,0.0002460171,0.00003313319,0.08281332],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.05921816,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4296598,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122457892","doi":"","title":"Police Questioning in the Charter Era: Adjudicative versus Regulatory Rule-making and the Problem of False Confes-sions","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Legislature; Parliament; Law; Doctrine; Political science; Common law; Criminal procedure; Silence; Politics","authors":[{"name":"Steven Penney","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.07814882466621065,"gpt":0.3630730621100589,"spread":0.2849242374438482,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.2123266,0.0005940064,0.00216629,0.004156104,0.009100174,0.03669428,0.006800465,0.02929008,0.001836587],"category_scores_gemma":[0.3013863,0.00160434,0.001613115,0.00311651,0.07278355,0.02448017,0.006833379,0.03030724,0.0007440148],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01213587,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01855236,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01616187,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01252863,"domain_scores_codex":[0.7874682,0.1426949,0.008259969,0.01418029,0.04004373,0.007353012],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.6042333,0.3367143,0.02090801,0.01688906,0.01878917,0.002466231],"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":[0.00002826094,0.00002771829,0.0007289181,0.0000569284,0.00001312916,0.0002103527,0.004329666,0.0004085848,0.0002112689,0.9728873,0.007658464,0.0134394],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001366451,0.0001071323,0.002609235,0.0009726249,0.00008016056,0.0003375188,0.003945291,0.004374056,0.001993381,0.9006423,0.08457533,0.0002263277],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.06273521,0.0175231,0.1053382,0.6836873,0.003017138,0.0002379169,0.0001524687,0.0002313034,0.1270774],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.866746,0.006312501,0.0335352,0.07949006,0.004376002,0.0004751915,0.00006803127,0.0001558865,0.008841165],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9838381,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9713416,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125233476","doi":"","title":"Freedom of Expression and Location: Are There Constitutional Dead Zones?","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","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":"Supreme court; Charter; Law; Commonwealth; Political science; Freedom of expression; Government (linguistics); Constitutional right; Expression (computer science); Philosophy; Human rights","authors":[{"name":"Brian Slattery","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04108899873595342,"gpt":0.3126134903062507,"spread":0.2715244915702972,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01061335,0.0006810065,0.001310008,0.001354018,0.008733648,0.01857004,0.004029809,0.01133202,0.01042365],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01728815,0.0006988252,0.001098376,0.001658286,0.06416105,0.0214085,0.009351515,0.01323185,0.001693392],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007917589,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01035732,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01939682,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01785141,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9887611,0.004061971,0.0006149549,0.001832154,0.002110277,0.002619524],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9928965,0.003597809,0.0005867037,0.001435061,0.0007989396,0.0006850201],"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":[0.000004367187,0.000003996926,0.00005632203,0.000008533738,0.000001713898,0.00001299548,0.0003340611,0.00004508341,0.00002940421,0.9971955,0.0008939274,0.001414096],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003623671,0.00002215161,0.0003746764,0.0001463943,0.00001407882,0.00006686712,0.002096403,0.000146856,0.0002227312,0.9367626,0.0600784,0.00003263627],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.05211994,0.01137709,0.04314224,0.1540763,0.001217465,0.0001309339,0.0006007952,0.0001368488,0.7371984],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9401081,0.002933122,0.006359685,0.01679456,0.0008915563,0.00031878,0.0001971793,0.00009412131,0.03230298],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9806032,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05744636,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1932747739","doi":"","title":"The First Years of the South African Constitutional Court","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Constitutional court; Constitution; Law; Jurisprudence; Political science; Dignity; Democracy; High Court; Human rights; Charter; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Hon. Justice Richard J. Goldstone","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05270734368583768,"gpt":0.3011518038867892,"spread":0.2484444602009516,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01223691,0.0004289784,0.0004663621,0.002896784,0.01106963,0.01158371,0.0008352156,0.005058474,0.004510838],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02654088,0.0008872785,0.0003948407,0.00251237,0.01848554,0.009590547,0.004841905,0.01429036,0.00052522],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02525382,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02265503,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04474671,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.05250841,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9890848,0.005038096,0.0005376004,0.0007719593,0.00294174,0.001625983],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9890856,0.007695663,0.0006909504,0.0005234283,0.001421812,0.0005825173],"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":[0.00000704674,0.000005691949,0.0001104347,0.00003448684,0.000002162201,0.0001206578,0.003985896,0.00007848746,0.00007962574,0.9863762,0.003732005,0.005467368],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000189657,0.00002719677,0.001696806,0.0007906706,0.000007772271,0.0002297523,0.004543539,0.0002760478,0.0006758196,0.1922042,0.799488,0.00004111848],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.05636469,0.09777337,0.007298727,0.1891255,0.00344837,0.000209307,0.0001540519,0.00004254152,0.6455833],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8698105,0.02902981,0.002380881,0.01712772,0.001061028,0.0002276567,0.00007268369,0.00005710119,0.08023254],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04474671,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1832301,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124017427","doi":"","title":"Extradition, Assurances and Human Rights: Guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada in India v. Badesha","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"International Law and Aviation","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":"Law; Deference; Human rights; Surrender; Supreme court; Political science; Charter; State (computer science); International human rights law; Economic Justice","authors":[{"name":"Joanna Harrington","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02740522701087773,"gpt":0.2852340960617914,"spread":0.2578288690509137,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01569544,0.0009362177,0.001163921,0.004056425,0.04154655,0.02527106,0.006544282,0.02217194,0.004579378],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03927204,0.00163001,0.001082221,0.005180344,0.0267106,0.005367727,0.006046754,0.02368054,0.0004741383],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1440997,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3163636,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9866973,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9930456,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9769199,0.003171032,0.001024774,0.001625694,0.008683586,0.00857495],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9713317,0.01609635,0.0009351668,0.0007064681,0.007779599,0.003150731],"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":[0.00003215045,0.00004227149,0.002788111,0.0001366116,0.00003442591,0.001333146,0.01157856,0.0007101954,0.0002820728,0.8865528,0.08531644,0.01119319],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001909115,0.00007423847,0.01635379,0.002177895,0.0002727308,0.0006202859,0.02175824,0.002262692,0.001514647,0.1500604,0.8040095,0.0007046878],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.06685083,0.03052244,0.003262034,0.4042482,0.002398276,0.0003606708,0.0007949599,0.0001838654,0.4913787],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7728174,0.01414695,0.003908947,0.1293055,0.000734845,0.0001804096,0.0003034681,0.0001424328,0.07846003],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1440997,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.992723,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124702976","doi":"","title":"Structure, Substance and Spirit: Lessons in Constitutional Architecture from the Senate Reform Reference","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"Constitution; Law; Interpretation (philosophy); Constitutional law; Political science; Architecture; Meaning (existential); Constitutional theory; Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science; Epistemology; Philosophy; History","authors":[{"name":"Kate Glover","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0988614719397214,"gpt":0.3319382043452743,"spread":0.2330767324055529,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007586936,0.000289283,0.0004824955,0.002116841,0.006457169,0.008423386,0.001427219,0.002637396,0.003482026],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01386285,0.0003567245,0.0003749092,0.003052491,0.04497818,0.009518205,0.003957867,0.006447171,0.0002582946],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01721131,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01517885,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.161962,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2033693,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9928847,0.004612217,0.0001704411,0.0004532659,0.001319229,0.0005601082],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9928093,0.004553533,0.0002722278,0.0008696009,0.001271887,0.0002234174],"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":[0.000002222703,0.000001471833,0.0001104732,0.00001139632,0.00000185069,0.00004141101,0.004771686,0.000178801,0.00002288943,0.990079,0.0007125104,0.004066281],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001237005,0.00002217261,0.001238298,0.000233142,0.0000140181,0.00008617356,0.01022707,0.0007042265,0.0003292475,0.8205593,0.166538,0.00003589211],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1323693,0.01587014,0.04852895,0.1465746,0.000789165,0.00006820903,0.0001877829,0.0001376685,0.6554741],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9746627,0.003743484,0.004846707,0.003628809,0.0002035209,0.00003662032,0.00005108734,0.00006001121,0.01276695],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.838038,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3220386,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121410435","doi":"","title":"The Charter versus the Government’s Crime Agenda","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Proportionality (law); Arbitrariness; Charter; Discretion; Political science; Supreme court; Law; Conviction; Legislature; Judicial review; Punishment (psychology); Deference; Judicial discretion; Government (linguistics); Law and economics; Sociology; Psychology","authors":[{"name":"Kent Roach","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08761686101070983,"gpt":0.3486745590541459,"spread":0.2610576980434361,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01007284,0.0005571667,0.0006656782,0.002784024,0.009573156,0.01536877,0.002139398,0.01323146,0.01063821],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01532078,0.0004649899,0.0007986918,0.002304052,0.02167364,0.01151289,0.005238827,0.01356276,0.0009147204],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01179063,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01777464,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02418556,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03806954,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9865147,0.00632448,0.000391777,0.001323077,0.003123164,0.002322857],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.991672,0.003941248,0.0008636311,0.0009882668,0.001533559,0.00100134],"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":[0.000007466917,0.00001071747,0.0000752448,0.000009102028,0.000001789055,0.00002718017,0.0003922451,0.0001038114,0.00002064582,0.989431,0.007211032,0.002709748],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006189781,0.00007368416,0.002159221,0.0003194904,0.00002636861,0.00008100899,0.001904904,0.0008050059,0.0002403953,0.6709596,0.3233157,0.0000526844],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.02221006,0.005924918,0.00599616,0.2419125,0.002367705,0.00007203507,0.0001705304,0.0000761075,0.72127],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8561097,0.004767672,0.00383441,0.06237696,0.005383027,0.0002650416,0.0002080151,0.0001493628,0.06690574],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.02418556,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08554733,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123173533","doi":"","title":"The Digitization of Section 8 of the Charter: Reform or Revolution?","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Data Privacy and Cybersecurity","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":"Indeterminacy (philosophy); Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Law; Section (typography); Charter; Political science; Sociology; Statute; Law and economics; Computer science; Epistemology; Philosophy","authors":[{"name":"Steven Penney","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.07413033378678249,"gpt":0.3298512306492543,"spread":0.2557208968624718,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006972701,0.0002069619,0.0003612441,0.0009808728,0.003929218,0.01015674,0.001873597,0.003693255,0.00402943],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01600221,0.000269548,0.0003801651,0.001499521,0.03015822,0.009859575,0.002878421,0.006430866,0.0004805065],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02870742,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.035323,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2150607,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.182191,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9945645,0.001458272,0.0001930499,0.0007461147,0.001910745,0.001127281],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.993895,0.002590426,0.0006866728,0.001296496,0.001211598,0.0003197403],"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":[0.000004461381,0.000005242412,0.0001240088,0.00001061919,9.194453e-7,0.00001913839,0.001444167,0.0001390449,0.00007475622,0.9854423,0.004146485,0.008588886],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002876613,0.00004700502,0.002147863,0.0004505386,0.00001681841,0.0001008741,0.00648126,0.0008183803,0.00103555,0.3492863,0.6395238,0.00006300581],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.09088039,0.01181772,0.01834692,0.2940703,0.002444132,0.00009855569,0.0001837027,0.0002118343,0.5819464],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8992361,0.007444718,0.006756827,0.04065709,0.001323095,0.00008700007,0.0001381463,0.00008267567,0.04427429],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7849393,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4276178,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121620811","doi":"","title":"“Detention” under the Charter after R. v. Grant and R. v. Suberu","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":"Charter; Supreme court; Law; CLARITY; Political science; Scope (computer science); Meaning (existential); Remand (court procedure); Sociology; Psychology","authors":[{"name":"Steven Penney","is_ca":false},{"name":"James Stribopoulos","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0501916679819801,"gpt":0.3192826819509025,"spread":0.2690910139689224,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01062057,0.0004930917,0.0004733837,0.001083459,0.00923402,0.003328897,0.002286041,0.007423797,0.001475178],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02764618,0.0004559609,0.0009998732,0.0008595469,0.007495263,0.002312855,0.002677029,0.01254745,0.0002485894],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0155867,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04580928,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4949117,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6776172,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9811531,0.003876919,0.0005868168,0.001498675,0.007778045,0.005106516],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9878016,0.006768096,0.001027656,0.0005666986,0.002913949,0.0009219038],"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":[0.0001630513,0.0001301154,0.008721724,0.0001286832,0.00004572841,0.00269358,0.02022714,0.001214332,0.0023558,0.8278767,0.08226077,0.05418238],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002397613,0.0008967909,0.06108397,0.0007289228,0.0004074524,0.003073039,0.0259069,0.004314421,0.01317407,0.120386,0.76868,0.00110868],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.4847525,0.01007872,0.02279814,0.2137416,0.005998849,0.000682661,0.0007588576,0.0005298968,0.2606588],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9277338,0.001508348,0.004240887,0.02602756,0.0004067095,0.0001222849,0.0000978694,0.00004782181,0.03981477],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4949117,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.984062,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121131019","doi":"","title":"Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat: An Arbitrary Approach to Discrimination","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Unanimity; Constitutionality; Arbitrariness; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Notice; Disadvantage; Context (archaeology); Prejudice (legal term); Charter; Sociology; History","authors":[{"name":"Jonnette Watson Hamilton","is_ca":false},{"name":"Jennifer Koshan","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1120915258025447,"gpt":0.3297034314616654,"spread":0.2176119056591207,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005761842,0.0003502116,0.0006382406,0.001671555,0.02734724,0.01020751,0.003538382,0.01218113,0.003402428],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01213447,0.000714026,0.0008812908,0.001865665,0.01527959,0.002773119,0.004049797,0.01671548,0.0004472498],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03955254,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08775155,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8916906,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9634759,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9885041,0.001132814,0.0004374898,0.00120042,0.004150601,0.00457454],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9930058,0.002965111,0.0003112456,0.0003431587,0.002305332,0.001069398],"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":[0.00004357336,0.00002993671,0.002767025,0.00004646958,0.00002028936,0.0007854062,0.01031358,0.0002102683,0.0008268798,0.9422795,0.03575655,0.006920455],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000217268,0.0001341745,0.03213958,0.0006826414,0.0002668987,0.001369547,0.02760223,0.003715223,0.00568777,0.2763359,0.6511776,0.0006711261],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.2120214,0.004005971,0.008789261,0.2046431,0.002357675,0.0003450747,0.0007875123,0.0001551063,0.5668948],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8349525,0.0009517416,0.003662776,0.08712434,0.0002576523,0.0001424474,0.0001286006,0.00006233117,0.07271763],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1083094,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2869751,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}