Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1896, when the first Kinetoscope was brought to Japan, to the early 1920s, all film screenings were accompanied by a live Japanese narrator called the benshi.Benshi stood to the left of the film screen and—speaking in melodious rhythms—provided narration, character impersonation, explanation of western exotica, and offered general commentary and critique for the then silent films. In late ninteenth-century Japan, film was not seen as an autonomous medium but rather as "commingled” media, comprised of vocal storytelling and projected motion pictures. This was in part due to long-standing Japanese theatrical traditions such as temple and itinerant etoki, the Japanese Buddhist practice in which monks use picture scrolls to expound Buddhist principles.4 Benshi performers drew upon such theatrical heritage to describe the foreign film apparatus, thereby fragmenting the filmic system of representation and instilling a distinct culture of critical independence in Japanese silent film audiences. This essay contributes to scholarly debates regarding “commingled” media, the juxtaposition of heterogeneous media, which is reflective of unique Japanese artistic culture. It provides a case study of Benshi Tokugawa Musei’s performance of the 1920 silent film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Robert Wiene) recorded at the Kinokuniya Hall in Tokyo in 1968.7 This remaining work by Tokugawa Musei, a renowned benshi of the silent film era, offers insight into interactions between the benshi and silent film as it relates to Japanese traditions of “commingled” media.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".