A Jungian Archetypal Analysis of Edgar Allan Poe’s The Fall of the House of Usher
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jungian Archetypes, as proposed by Carl Jung, are universal, archaic and innate models of human knowledge, behaviors and thoughts which are firmly rooted in the “collective unconscious” inherited from human ancestors. In general, Jung identified four major archetypes as the “persona”, the “shadow”, the “anima” and the “animus”. According to him, whether the balance between androgynous personalities or the confrontation of the “persona” and the “shadow”, is the process of human self-actualization and individuation. Currently, Jungian Archetypes have been widely adopted to do literature analysis in which Edgar Allan Poe’s instrument of Over-Soul seems to be a perfect match. In Poe’s major works, The Fall of the House of Usher is one of the most impressive and prestigious one in exploration of the human psyche. Insofar, through the application of Jungian Archetypes, this essay aims to interpret the psychological states of Roderick Usher, Madeline Usher and the narrator in this short story to probe into the hidden recesses of human minds in Edgar Allan Poe’s age.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".