Do (Ab)Users of Psychedelics Have Tendencies to Abuse High Authority? An Internet Snapshot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hallucinogenic substances, also known as psychedelics and entheogens, represent a subset of novel psychoactive substances. The epidemiology of (ab)use and electronic commerce of Psychedelics has been well-mapped in the developed world. However, countries from the developing world are yet to be explored. Principles of psychology including thematic psychoanalysis were not implemented before in connection with psychedelics.MATERIALS & METHODS: This study is based on an internet snapshot technique; it will explore and analyse the comments of psychedelics’ (ab)users in relation to the possibility of abuse of some granted power (authority); several demographic parameters of (ab)users will be explored. The snapshot will implement thematic analysis and psychoanalysis of comments found on drug fora and social communication media.RESULTS: The highest contribution of psychedelic users existed in the developed world, while the developing countries including the Middle East contributed the least. More than half (57%) of Psychedelic (ab)users tend to misuse power, which may indicate an existing psychopathology.CONCLUSION: Psychedelic users tend to mishandle the use of authority. The prevalence of psychedelic (ab)users in the Middle East is considered to be minimal. Additional analyses are required and in different populations of students, academics, medical professionals, psychiatric patients, prisoners, terrorists, and military organisations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".