Dominant Narratives in Contemporary Psychedelic Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the past two decades, the institutional effects of twentieth century anti-drug politics have begun to lessen for researchers interested in understanding the influence of psychedelics on humans.Rooted in Indigenous intellectual property and practices, contemporary psychedelic research has centred syncretic approaches to psychedelic-taking, blending elements of various cross-cultural practices, largely by and for Western subjects.Recent changes in the social, economic, and institutional positioning of psychedelics come subsequent to growing evidence concerning the safety profile and observed effects of psychedelics to date, leading educational and regulatory bodies to temper barriers to psychedelic research within controlled clinical and preclinical contexts.In light of the nascent clinical and cultural reinterest in psychedelics within Western society and culture, the present thesis examines dominant narratives within contemporary psychedelic medicine through a synthesis of Cohen's (2016) theory of psychiatric hegemony with recent theoretical developments in the emerging field of critical psychedelic studies.It is argued that within contemporary psychedelic medicine, dominant discourses centre individualizing, medicalizing, depoliticizing, and utopian frameworks, upholding Western conceptions and imperatives regarding human subjectivity and self-governance; narratives which countervail the development of class consciousness, despite relying on emancipatory language and aesthetics.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".