“RASHOMON EFFECT” AS A COMMUNICATIVE DISORIENTATION PHENOMENON (MEDIARESEARCH ESSAY)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper discusses one of the topical problems of present-day Western massmedia studies, namely, the "Rashomon Effect" in Communication. A detailed analysis of this professional difficulty by the Canadian colleagues (in "Canadian Journal of Communication", 2016/No 2) gave us the idea of our own research with the Russian media texts (October 2016 - October 2017). We explain the origins of the term "Rashomon Effect" (named after Kurosawa's film, 1950) and offer brief characteristics of this phenomenon (premeditated / unpremeditated "Rashomon Effect"). Our paper presents the "Rashomon Effect" as a communicative disorientation, one of the "specific difficulties" for journalists and as the complex epistemological problem. The "Rashomon Effect" mechanisms are numerous; however, the starting point of the "Rashomon Effect" is situated on the basis of inadequate information. The research is developed on the base of some debating publications in the Russian media (for example, Ivan the Terrible Monument in Orel, 2016; A. Uchitel's film "Matilda", 2016-2017). Among other things, the keynote "Russian" factor is to look for historical "veritable truth" through the "Rashomon Effect". Finally, the appearance of the film's name for cognitive and cultural phenomenon known in foreign communication, psychology, anthropology, sociology, epistemology, demonstrates that "The Rashomon Effect" has the global character, but it should be noted that Russian media researchers rarely utilize this term. We can conclude that the "Rashomon Effect" is not only about differences of perspectives; it is the result of the journalist unscrupulousness (premeditated "Rashomon Effect") or of the journalist error (unpremeditated "Rashomon Effect"). In our opinion, the question of the "Rashomon Effect" in Russian media needs to be under discussion for the neutralization of this professional problem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".