One Ultimate Journey? AKA the Huxley’s Method: Perspectives of (Ab)Users of Hallucinogens and Entheogens on Having Planned Pre-Mortem Psychedelic Trip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The surface web is a rich source of extensive data on populations of users and misusers of psychoactive substances including substances known as hallucinogens and entheogens. The internet and its social media websites can serve as a database upon which several hypotheses are applicable via thematic analytic and psychoanalytic studies. Materials and Methods: This study will deploy the use of an internet snapshot by inspecting, via thematic analysis, the comments of a population of psychedelic (ab)users existing on the Facebook social platform. The snapshot will dare to answer an existing question in connection with the concept of using psychedelics and entheogens during the moments preceding death. Several demographics will be explored including ethnic-national and socio-cultural parameters to test several hypotheses about the tendencies for having an ultimate pre-mortem psychedelic trip towards the ambiguous afterlife. Results: Most of the psychedelic users recommended the use of DMT for the final journey. Others have suggested tripping on LSD, Psilocybin and Psilocybin mushrooms, NBOMe compounds, and even opiates. Based on inferential models, it seems that tendencies for the pre-mortem trip are not affected by the status of social relations, ethnicity, nationality, age, or sex. However, it appears to be based on the individualistic build-up. Religious affiliations and other cultural norms represent potential confounding variables. Hence, these must be explored in subsequent studies. Conclusion: In the future and to keep in pace with the logarithmic growth and arachnoid expansion of the web and its appendages, ambitious studies has to deploy the use of concepts of automation in data science via the exploitation of principles of machine learning and deep thinking. The aim is to achieve statistical inference in real-time and accurate predictions when it comes to running analytics on big data. If successfully applied, the benefits for the public health should be monumental.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".