Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of this portion of the Symposium is “Takings and the Changing Coastal Environment,” and in this essay I focus on the “takings” part of that title, as well as offer some thoughts on our guiding subject, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s decision from a quarter-century ago in PASH1which famously noted “that the western concept of exclusivity is not universally applicable in Hawaii.”2 How might that ruling be viewed today through the lens of property law and property rights? And what implications does PASH have, if any, for property rights in the coastal zone? This essay is in three parts.First, in Section II, I summarize the PASH opinion, and conclude that the court reached out to resolve an issue it need not have decided, and that the jurisdictional questions presented in the case should have avoided the takings questions. Next, in Section III, I offer up my two main criticisms of PASH, the first on takings the second on separation of powers. Finally, I conclude with some thoughts about how courts should consider property rights in a changing coastal environment, in light of these criticisms of PASH.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".