MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955281864 · doi:10.29173/jjs10s

Trump’s Base, Ahab, and the American Dream

2018· article· en· W2955281864 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Inez Martinez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Jungian Scholarly Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis, Philosophy, and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamHappinessDeclaration of independenceWhite (mutation)AestheticsSociologyPsychoanalysisPsychologyLawSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This transdisciplinary study argues that the fury of President Trump’s base can be understood as a victim complex, one caused by the erosion of the dominance of white males that existed at the founding of America. The preamble of the Declaration of Independence became an iconic articulation of the American dream, unintentionally establishing a contradiction between the ideas that all people are created equal and that individuals have an unlimited right to pursue happiness. Analysis of Ahab of Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick reveals connections between Ahab’s victim complex and the behavior and attitudes of Trump’s base. Analysis of Ishmael’s survival suggests ways the American dream as articulated in the Declaration of Independence needs to be dreamed forward. His survival through interdependence and an embrace of diversity suggests a way to re-vision the American dream so as to incorporate psychological determinants, including the limitations of the ego, in the understanding of freedom and happiness. Revisioning the individual pursuit of happiness as limited by the common good furthers the dream of equality under the law and could help free white supremacists from their entrapment in a victim complex convincing them of their entitlement to dominate others.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Jungian Scholarly StudiesSame topicPsychoanalysis, Philosophy, and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207