Should I Stay or Should I Go? An Analysis of the Selective Permeability of Busan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our task in this article is to investigate selective permeability in the city of Busan in South Korea.Drawing on Gibson's tenet that perception organizes around "affordances" or action possibilities, the selective permeability model suggests that a single setting can be objectively supportive or hostile to different individuals.Embodied pragmatists and phenomenologists influenced Gibson, and we explore how factors like cultural habits, language, gender, age, geographical topography, and built form in Busan combine to alter bodily comportment so that action-closing "negative affordances" can manifest to one individual but not another.This, in turn, may make one stay in or retreat from Busan or places in it.For example, there is evidence that middle-aged Russian-speaking men experience greater safety-and thus freedom of movement-in some areas of Busan, as compared to younger Russian-speaking men, not to mention women.Throughout, we follow Dewey's lead in adopting what might be called "constructive realism," which holds that changes, once introduced to the world by human actors, are concretely there independently of any single observer-a position that weighs against dismissing 1 This work was supported by a New Faculty Research Grant of Pusan National University, 2024.We are grateful to the editors of this issue, Remmon Barbaza and Anton Heinrich Rennesland, as well as everybody involved in the Summer 2024 Philosophy of the City Colloquium held at Ateneo de Manila University.Additional credit goes to Liliya Kim for help in collecting data.We especially thank Mareike Joleen Timm for her theoretical contributions, her assistance with data collection, and for her help preparing Figure 3 and supplying three out of six photos in Figure 5. Various institutions supported this research, including Pusan National University, the Berlin School of Mind and Brain, and the Dominican Institute for Oriental Studies.Above all, this project would not have happened without the many anonymous individuals who voluntarily availed themselves to supply data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".