MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020193996 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.22.1.002

Jesus Christ and Billy the Kid as Archetypes of the Self in American Cinema

2010· article· en· W2020193996 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michelangelo Paganopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicViolence, Religion, and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchetypeVisionMythologyChristianityCharismaConsciousnessSpiritualityCollective unconsciousMovie theaterContext (archaeology)Order (exchange)AestheticsSociologyLiteratureReligious studiesArtArt historyPhilosophyHistoryTheologyAnthropologyPsychoanalysisEpistemologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper combines cultural and anthropological perspectives, focusing on the affinity between the concepts of 'collective consciousness' (Durkheim) and 'collective unconcsciousness' (Jung). It argues that films are the dreams of charismatic auteur directors, who project their prophetic vision to a wider audience, in the Celluloid Church. These mechanically reproduced visions are based on eternal myths and archetypes, which symbolically reflect upon the contemporary industry/society that produces them. In this context, the paper focuses on film depictions of Billy the Kid as an archetype of the Self, with visual references to Jesus' Crucifixion and Lamentation, in order to illustrate the “spiritual” turn inwards Christianity as expressed in the collective consciousness of American culture, from the anti-communist 1950s, and through the spirituality of the 1960s and 1970s to the recent rise of Evangelical Christianity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicViolence, Religion, and PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207