MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411265436 · doi:10.29173/jjs277s

Three Perspectives on Jung, Wells, and Schreber

2025· article· en· W4411265436 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Matthew A. Fike

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Jungian Scholarly Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicJungian Analytical Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychoanalysisSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A single sentence in C. G. Jung’s “Commentary on The Secret of the Golden Flower” links H. G. Wells’s Christina Alberta’s Father and Daniel Paul Schreber’s Memoirs of My Nervous Illness as illustrations of the principle that repression leads to insanity. The essay demonstrates the following points: Jung inspired the creation of Wells’s novel; comments on Schreber illuminate the course of the Freud-Jung friendship; the books illustrate Jung’s theory that repression leads to insanity; and projecting interiority onto God and believing the intrapsychic to be extrapsychic are problematic tendencies in both texts. Although Wells’s main character, Edward Albert Preemby, and Schreber himself make some progress toward psychological wholeness, Preemby dies before he can enjoy his new perspective, and Schreber returns to the asylum for his final years.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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