The history of psychedelics and why psychedelic stories matter
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of psychedelics and why psychedelic stories matter Erika Dyck argues that how people learn about psychedelics today matters, based on the histories of these drugs and how they have been and should be used in clinical medicine. While these substances have piqued the interest and influenced the attitudes of individuals across academia, culture, and medicine, expanding before and well after the 1950's, Dr. Dyck notes that psychedelic drugs have had a long and colourful history. However, their history has not come without polarising opinions, as until recently, trends in cultural attitudes towards non-medical drug use in general and the role of consciousness-altering substances in clinical medicine have often been negative. Despite this writing tradition, more and more public conversations on psychedelics are coming from people with enthusiastic claims about the benefits of psychedelic drug use that rely on severing the current culture of psychedelics from the past, and some might even suggest severing psychedelics from mainstream institutions which tend to be more conservative – like universities or food and drug administrations, or even healthcare systems.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it