Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we initiate a conversation between scientific and humanities-oriented studies of sexuality and psychedelics. Drawing on three recent studies which indicate a positive connection between the use of psychedelics and sexual well-being, the article argues that taking account of sexuality as culturally produced, historically contingent and geographically specific would improve the reliability and efficacy of future studies. The need for socially and culturally attuned research grounded in contemporary sexual politics in this area is urgent, as in recent years-despite little reporting of sexuality in clinical research-the psychedelics field has had to grapple with the ethics of the relationship between psychedelic states and sexual interactions in therapeutic spaces and the 'underground'. There is also scant attention to date paid to the gendered dynamics of sex and sexuality, and how this may impact perceptions of the relationship between psychedelic therapeutic repair versus enhancement. We unpack some of these dilemmas and outline some key concerns and potential priorities for future research into sexuality and psychedelics in a post-#MeToo era.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".