Let’s Go Out For A Day Trip? Perspectives of Psychedelics (Ab)Users on the Safety of Acid (LSD) Tripping in Public Places
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Novel psychoactive substances (NPS) represent a unique phenomenon of the 21st century. These substances are of critical consequences on public health and national economies. Hallucinogens, also known as psychedelics and entheogens, represent one category of NPS. Numerous private groups do exist on the online drug fora and the online social platforms including Facebook. Psychedelic tripping or acid trip (using LSD) depicts one of the controversial life experiences; tripping can be indoor or in public.MATERIALS And METHODS: This study is observational and cross-sectional; it was based on an Internet Snapshot taken for a private group on Facebook; the group is dedicated for (ab)users of psychedelic substances. The snapshot was captured for a thread in relation to a critical question which was posted on the safety of day tripping using acid (LSD) in public places. Individual accounts of commenters (n=172) were analyzed in relation to demographics, length and themes of comments, and the attitude towards public tripping. This study is the first of its kind; it aims to conclude with an inference whether outdoor tripping is favourable by psychedelics users or not.RESULTS: A total of 137 psychedelic users’ comments were analyzed out of 172 (79.7%); males contributed more (n=111, 81%); the mean age was 32.14 years; most were Caucasian males from the US. (Ab)users were mainly geo-mapped into the US (85.4%), Canada (5.1%), and UK (3.7%). Those who had a positive attitude in relation to day tripping public places accounted for three-quarters (75.2%). Ethnicities and nationalities had no differential effect on a psychedelic user’s age nor his (her) enthusiasm for day tripping. However, (ab)users from the US were found to be more enthused. Further, there was a significant difference in relation to the attitude in between individuals with; positive attitude and negative attitude (p-value<0.001).CONCLUSION: Psychedelics (ab)users appeared to be in favour of having an acid trip in public; those were mainly geographically mapped into the developed countries, while the contribution of the developing countries was minimal. This study can be copied to populations of interest of different backgrounds, cultures, and ethnicities in an aim to infer changes in trends and preferences of individual users across time and place.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».