Inspiration et création artistique en contexte d’usage de psychotropes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apart from the Inuits, who, until the arrival of the ‘white man’, were unable to cultivate plants because of the climate, it can be said that all cultures and human societies used psychotropic substances, and their usage can be considered universal. Although the use of certain psychotropic substances is associated with deviancy, multiple reasons can shed light on the drug phenomenon as a multifactorial reality. Among these reasons we can mention: medical use for health reasons, pleasure and sensorial experience; knowledge and exploration of the self; psychotherapy with LSD 25; war; support for religious practices; creation and artistic inspiration, etc. Through a literature review, this article explores the sociological and anthropological perspective in the field of psychotropic substances and their ties with the process of creativity and artistic inspiration (music, poetry, the arts, etc.). With a constructivist approach, a psychosocial perspective will be enabled to take a hold on certain social and cultural challenges in the context of psychotropic substance use and artistic creation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".