A Study on the Need to Exclude Foreign Permanent Residents Including Chinese from Voting in Local Elections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005, during the Roh Moo-hyun administration, South Korea gave foreigners the right to vote for local council members and heads of local governments. Koreans living in China cannot cast a single vote in elections held in China. Foreign permanent residents residing in South Korea can vote after only three years. The number of Chinese permanent residents in South Korea is approximately 150,000, and the number of permanent residents who are foreigners and can participate in elections in 2026 is expected to be 181,251. This can be said to be an example of deviating from the principle of reciprocity in that one can vote in Korean local elections even if one does not have Korean nationality. The current law has some unreasonable aspects and is not fair from the perspective of reciprocity. Additionally, there have been attempts by China to interfere in elections in Australia and Canada, and voices of concern about Chinese political intervention are growing. These laws that violate reciprocity must be revised. Based on the principle of reciprocity voting rights for foreign permanent residents including Chinese should be excluded.
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 | 0.013 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".