Indigenous psilocybin mushroom practices: An annotated bibliography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This annotated bibliography comprises 49 texts concerning psilocybin mushroom practices developed by Indigenous peoples. The books and articles have been selected for their academic rigor, relevance, and historical significance, and to foreground overlooked research and subject matter. This includes research on a plurality of contemporary practices and evidence of historical uses, from cultural traditions in Mexico and other regions of the world. The curated texts are sourced from various disciplines, including anthropology, history, archaeology, ethnolinguistics, and ethnomycology. Employing diverse methodological and analytical frameworks, the texts explore the diversity of ways Indigenous cultures have related with, utilized, and conceptualized psilocybin mushrooms and the effects occasioned by their consumption. The annotations include brief summaries of the texts, contextualization of the research, and more critical appraisals. The aim of this annotated bibliography is to offer the reader a diverse overview of the research to date and provide an accessible resource for further exploration of historical and contemporary Indigenous psilocybin practices. The team of psychedelic researchers behind this annotated bibliography hope it will contribute to more nuanced dialogue around Indigenous people and practices in the context of the so-called psychedelic renaissance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".