Scoping review on shamanistic trances practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shamanism is a spiritual tradition in which trance practitioners deliberately modify their state of consciousness to seemingly interact with an invisible world to resolve their community members' problems. This review aims to provide a multidisciplinary overview of scientific research on shamanic trance. METHODS: The search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Twenty-seven articles were found to be eligible, and their data were classified into four dimensions, namely, a) phenomenology, b) psychology, c) neuro-physiological functions, and d) clinical applications. RESULTS: These studies suggest that these trances are non-pathological, different from normal states of consciousness in terms of phenomenology and neurophysiology, and influenced by multiple personal and environmental variables. Furthermore, while trances may offer therapeutic potential, their scope should be approached cautiously, underscoring the need for rigorous studies to assess the effectiveness of shamanic approaches for complementary therapies. CONCLUSION: Overall, shamanic trance and its potential benefits remain an intriguing and multifaceted area of scientific study, offering insights into the intersections of consciousness, spirituality, and possibly therapy.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 teacher head, 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".