Down the Rabbit Hole: A Large-Scale Survey of Psychedelic Users’ Patterns of Use and Perceived Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ever-changing landscape surrounding legality and accessibility of psychedelics and their increasing popularity make it imperative to better understand the nature of psychedelic use by the general population. To this end, 1,486 eligible respondents (Mage = 29.58, 67.1% male) residing in the United States completed an online survey designed to assess the types of psychedelics used, methods of administration and dosing, frequency of use, intentions for use, context/environments in which they are used, perceived acute effects, frequency of those effects and distress about them, and their perceived residual effects and distress about them. Respondents predominantly endorsed using MDMA, LSD, DMT, and psilocybin. The predominant methods of administration were oral. Most reported using psychedelics for recreational purposes. The most endorsed acute effects were hallucinations, increased heart rate, positive mood, and visual tracers, while the most endorsed residual effects were headaches/migraine, dry mouth, nausea, hallucinations, and anxiety. Participants were most distressed by negative mood states, vomiting, and nausea when under the acute effects of psychedelics, but mean distress ratings were low. These results can help inform clinical trials, reform policy regarding legal access to psychedelics, and track changes in these metrics as sociocultural and legal landscapes continue to shift.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".