Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human use of psychedelic substances has been practiced for 5,700 years in social, religious and medicinal applications alike. Early pharmacological study of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and other “classic psychedelics” psilocybin, mescaline, and N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) suggested therapeutic potential for conditions such as anxiety and substance dependence. Additionally, research indicated that psychedelics were neither addictive nor toxic and appeared to produce several positive effects after a single dosing session. Criticisms of methodological shortcomings, alongside cultural stigma and criminalization, ultimately curtailed further scientific investigation of psychedelics in the context of psychotherapy. Despite marked historical hurdles, the recent resurgence of clinical examination involving psychedelics suggests the scientific community has begun to look beyond the stigmatization of such substances, and towards their therapeutic potential. Through a broad examination of early and contemporary clinical trials, this article explores the prospect of psychedelics as psychotherapy in the context of methodological, cultural, and political influences. This analysis outlines the historical evolution of psychedelic clinical investigation, with the aim of presenting the warranted and unbiased study of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy in light of current public health demands. Keywords: psychedelic research, psychotherapy, psychopharmacology, controlled clinical trials, cultural stigma, substance criminalization
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".