MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366782742 · doi:10.29173/jjs219s

The Castaway Archetype in Two Tales of an Island Year

2023· article· en· W4366782742 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew A. Fike

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Jungian Scholarly Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicJungian Analytical Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchetypePassionTheme (computing)Isolation (microbiology)Ideal (ethics)Inheritance (genetic algorithm)HistoryPsychoanalysisSociologyGenealogyPhilosophyArtPsychologyLiteratureEpistemologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The castaway archetype is examined in Lucy Irvine’s Castaway and Gerald Kingsland’s The Islander—dual accounts of a year spent on Tuin Island in the Torres Strait north of Australia. The castaway archetype adds a survivalist theme to C. G. Jung’s interest in living simply and close to nature—as he did at Bollingen—and intersects with his ideas in the essay “Archaic Man.” In general, castaways’ exposure to extreme isolation, survival conditions, and perils both physical and psychological activates an inheritance from ancient humans. However, contrasting markedly with Jung’s positive ideal in “Marriage as a Psychological Relationship,” Irvine and Kingsland live at cross-purposes because they constellate incompatible archetypes, which results in what Anthony Stevens calls the “frustration of archetypal intent.” Kingsland enacts the husband, but Irvine enacts the castaway; he loves her erotically, but her passion is for the island. Although projection, compensation, and enantiodromia complicate matters, the experience proves psychologically instructive for both, though the lessons are hard won.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.356 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Jungian Scholarly StudiesSame topicJungian Analytical PsychologyFrench-language works237,207