MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389614071 · doi:10.3138/jmvfh-2023-0010

A history and future of psychedelics: The case of the Canadian military

2023· article· en· W4389614071 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Erika Dyck, Gregory P. Marchildon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Military Veteran and Family Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsilocybinLysergic acid diethylamidePsychologyPsychiatryMilitary personnelMAGIC (telescope)HallucinogenMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted breakthrough therapy status to 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) based partially on clinical trials with American Veterans. This drug, known popularly as ecstasy, generated better results for individuals suffering from PTSD than any other available therapies. Other trials focused on Veterans and those in active military service, alongside emerging studies with first responders, police officers, and people with complex trauma-based disorders. Although psychedelic drugs, especially psilocybin mushrooms and MDMA, are once again the subject of a variety of clinical trials that span beyond military medicine and PTSD, the connection between psychedelics and military health present particular challenges and opportunities when it comes to integrating psychedelics into the Canadian military health system. This article examines the history of psychedelics in Canada, underscoring the importance of how historical understandings of both military-based trauma and psychedelics influenced the reception of psychedelics as therapeutic options today.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0290.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Military Veteran and Family HealthSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207