Passenger movement and air terminal design: artworks, wayfinding, commerce, and kinaesthesia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay examines how planners design air terminal interiors to order passenger movement and to stimulate passenger spending. Corridors and escalators are obvious examples of interior design that function to guide passengers through the space. However, there are other subtle strategies such as ceiling designs, flooring patterns, and artworks that are intended to prompt passengers to move towards certain locations. I discuss how these designs operate on an affective register and how planners believe that material cues might stimulate particular types of movement and specific mental states associated with a desire to spend. While this essay examines a number of design strategies, it focuses on how artworks are used in the terminal for wayfinding and commercial purposes. I consider how artworks are installed as landmarks to help with orienting oneself in the terminal and how they are sometimes used to draw passengers towards consumer spaces. I also discuss how planners presume that specific types of artworks will encourage passenger spending. These are often installations that convey themes related to the region where the airport is located. Another widespread theme among airport artworks is movement. In many cases, these artworks signify a relatively unrestricted type of movement that contrasts with the regulated movement that passengers typically experience while flying commercially. I consider how these artworks are able to affect passengers and elicit kinaesthesia, the sensation of movement, and whether these representations of unrestricted movement are installed for functional purposes.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it