Preferences, Perceptions, and Environmental Considerations of Natural and Synthetic Psychedelic Substances: Findings from the Global Psychedelic Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although several studies have well described the characteristics of people who use psychedelics alongside their motivations and beliefs, little research has examined the preferences surrounding the source of psychedelic substances. In an anonymous online survey, we collected data from 6,379 consumers of 11 different psychedelic substances from 85 different countries, exploring their preferences and perceptions on natural and synthetic psychedelics. There was a strong preference of natural sources over synthetic alternatives for psilocybin (75%), DMT (56%), and mescaline (56%). Moreover, 50.8% of respondents believed that the source impacts the psychedelic's psychological and physiological effects, while 34.4% of respondents had a neutral stance on the topic. Despite the preference for natural sources, 67.7% of respondents agreed to switch to using synthetic alternatives to psychedelic substances if it would lessen the environmental impacts caused by the overharvesting of natural sources. This study presents novel insights into consumer preferences on the source of popular psychedelic substances. This international survey is limited to respondents primarily belonging to anglophone regions of the world.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".