Correlation of Private and Public Interests in Land Law: Continuation of the Optimal Combination Search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article on the base of approach to history, analysis of Russia’s laws and judicial practice explores a complicated legal and political issue about seeking an optimal balance between private and public interests in the sphere of land relations. The issue is most directly visible within the boundaries of the settlements, where the norms of the land, civil and town-planning law enter into a dynamic interaction. Its essence is in the necessity of securing the balance of a private owner interests (construction of a dwelling house or another real estate object) with the interests of the city’s inhabitants (public interest), consisting in providing them with a comfortable and safe residence, work and rest. No less difficulty the search of balance between private and public interests acquires in the event if private interests in use of a one natural resource overlap the public use of the other natural resource, located in that terrain. A classic example of this is the conflict of interests between private owners of land parcels and of an indeterminate number of citizens engaged in hunting within limits of such land parcels or on the adjacent territories. The article argues that this problem is equally intrinsic to the Russian Federation, countries of the former Socialist camp as well as the developed European countries.The authors prove that in the sphere of land relations the law norms provide for a much wider range of public and private methods of legal regulation, than in the other branches of law. At the same time, an important particularity of land relations is the variety of forms and methods of finding a compromise between private and public interests in use of land parcels, the impact on content of rights and duties of the land parcels’ owners of town-planning requirements, specified in the building regulations (zoning) of the municipality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".