Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this able monograph Erika Dyck describes an important but largely unknown subfield of the history of psychopharmacology. The history of medical drugs that affect brain and mind, their social uses, and their underlying science has been experiencing a revival of interest among historians of medicine. However, the subject's origins have remained largely obscure. Many are unaware that psychopharmacology really began in 1943 with Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann's discovery that a drug he had synthesized five years earlier, called d-lysergic acid diethylamide lysergide, or LSD, was highly psychoactive; it produced hallucinations that were deemed (inaccurately as it turned out) “schizophrenia-like.” Early on, scientists conducted much research on such “psychotomimetic” agents (for which the psychiatrist Humphrey Osmond coined the memorable term “psychedelic”) in hopes of learning more about schizophrenia. One site of this research was a provincial mental hospital in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. Here occurred the story that Dyck chronicles: namely, efforts to establish medical uses for LSD, partly in the area of deepened personal insights in psychotherapy and partly in the treatment of alcoholism. Weyburn in the mid-1950s, she writes, “became a hub of international networks for the advancement of psychedelic research … These LSD experiments, which made critical contributions to public health reforms and psychiatric research, became some of the largest, most enduring, and internationally significant experiments in the post-World War II period” (pp. 2–3). Dyck's book, which is mainly about Weyburn and its cast of characters, is overtitled, leading one to think it might be a general history of the rise and fall of LSD, which it decidedly is not.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.012 |
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".