MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159093976 · doi:10.23977/aetp.2021.52005

A Jungian Archetypal Analysis of Edgar Allan Poe’s The Fall of the House of Usher

2021· article· en· W3159093976 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shuyu Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicJungian Analytical Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycheArchetypeSoulPersonaPsychoanalysisUnconscious mindAnalytical psychologyPhilosophyShadow (psychology)IndividuationCollective unconsciousFall of manHumanityArt historyArtPsychologyEpistemologyHumanitiesTheologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Educational Technology and PsychologySame topicJungian Analytical PsychologyFrench-language works237,207