MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365446979 · doi:10.56367/oag-038-10664

Psychedelic therapies are returning to psychiatry

2023· article· en· W4365446979 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erika Dyck

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access Government · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental illnessPsychiatryPerspective (graphical)The RenaissanceMental healthMentally illPsychotherapistPsychologyMedicineCriminologyHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychedelic therapies are returning to psychiatry Professor Erika Dyck, Canada Research Chair in History of Health & Social Justice at the University of Saskatchewan argues that psychedelic drugs and therapies, whether conducted in ceremonial settings or clinical ones, are being touted as life-changing moments for their capacity to efficiently transform an individual's perspective on themselves. The number of people who suffer from mental illness has grown steadily, with the WHO now reporting that 1 in 5 people in the world lives with mental illness. Due to this, numerous psychedelic therapies have also emerged on this landscape as a potential treatment that may improve individual lives while also transforming the way we diagnose and treat mental illness around the world – labelled a "psychedelic renaissance". Initiatives to legalize, decriminalize, and/or regulate psychedelics have taken different legal forms – as the legal landscape is changing quickly – but there are undeniable and unprecedented successes in treating alcoholism and trauma-based disorders with psychedelic therapies, which Professor Dyck recommends to be explored in more depth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Access GovernmentSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207