Federalism & Native Hawaiian Claims: Toward an Equitable and Just Solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses a hypothetical case: on behalf of the Native Hawaiian People as a whole, a group of Native Hawaiians has petitioned a Hawai’i State court seeking two declaratory rulings. First, a declaration that Native Hawaiians have not lost their inherent sovereignty as an indigenous people. Second, a declaration that Native Hawaiians collectively retain a beneficial interest in the former Crown Lands of Hawai’i. The article responds affirmatively to those requests, in the form of a draft opinion by a fictional Justice of the Hawai’i Supreme Court. Citing long settled U.S. federalism doctrine, the text explains that the State of Hawai’i possesses concurrent power with the United States to recognize the inherent sovereignty of Native Hawaiians, and to define the legal scope of that sovereignty as a matter of Hawai’i law. Relying upon exisiting Hawai’i legislation, exisiting Hawai’i Supreme Court precedent, and a similar doctrine developed by the Supreme Court of Canada, the text concludes that Native Hawaiians collectively retain a usufructary right in the remaining publicly-owned Crown Lands. Finally, this article envisions only incremental steps. It is intended and respectfully submitted without prejudice of any kind, conceptual or otherwise, to other, further theories of Native Hawaiian sovereignty and restorative justice.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".