Let’s Go Out For A Day Trip? Perspectives of Psychedelics (Ab)Users on the Safety of Acid (LSD) Tripping in Public Places
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".