The library is open: a scoping review on queer representation in psychedelic research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intersection of queer identity and psychedelics has not been thoroughly explored by the research community, historically or in the present day. With growing access to legal psychedelic therapies, it is essential that queer psychedelic experiences are understood sufficiently by clinicians in order to provide the most safe and effective care possible. Psychedelics and queerness are intricately related, and there is strong interest in the use of psychedelics for healing and identity development among queer populations. However, the vast majority of the literature stigmatizes and problematizes queer psychedelic use. Therefore this scoping review seeks to explore the current and historical overlap between psychedelics and queerness in the academic literature. Specifically, this scoping review aims to understand the available academic literatures' treatment of the meaningful, non-pathologizing use of psychedelics within the queer community, and seeks to highlight the unique potential a queer lens and the queer experience can bring to the study of psychedelics. To do so, we asked what queer psychedelic experiences are reflected in the literature, who is being studied, what queer individuals' motivations are for using psychedelics, and a review of the impacts of queer psychedelic use discussed in the literature. Literature searches were performed in seven academic databases using a wide breadth of both queer-related and psychedelic-related keywords, which resulted in over thirty thousand resources being captured. After screening, a total of 18 resources were collected as representative of the meaningful overlap of psychedelics and queerness. Based on the findings and research gaps identified, this scoping review makes several recommendations regarding future directions psychedelic researchers and clinicians can pursue to better understand and benefit from the meaningful overlap of psychedelics and queerness. By reclaiming, redefining, and reimagining the meaningful relationship between psychedelics and the queer experience, this review helps move the scientific and clinical conversation into queerer spaces, centering queerness and queer experiences as an essential component of psychedelic research and practice.
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 | 0.021 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".