MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200010543 · doi:10.1007/s10882-021-09829-2

Stigma and Adults with Tourette’s Syndrome: “Never Laugh at Other People’s Disabilities, Unless they have Tourette’s—Because How Can You Not?”

2021· article· en· W4200010543 on OpenAlexaff
Melina Aikaterini Malli, Rachel Forrester‐Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersTourettes Action
KeywordsPsychologyStigma (botany)Social stigmaPublic healthQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologyScale (ratio)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryMedicineSociologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tourette’s syndrome (TS) is a condition that has been stigmatised and mocked in contemporary society, yet little is known about the subjective experience of those directly affected by it. Guided by Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) a mixed method design was used for this study to explore the experience of stigma in adults living with TS in the UK. A total of one hundred and ninety-nine adults participated in a cross-sectional online survey using an adapted version of the Discrimination and Stigma Scale (DISC-12) and the Perceived Quality of Life (PQoL) scale, twenty of whom were also interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule. Quantitative findings indicated that participants experienced discrimination in numerous life domains; most prominently in education (75.4%), social life (71.4%), public transport (60.8%) and employment (54.3.%). The PQoL of adults with Tourette’s was found to be negatively correlated with bothEnactedandAnticipated Discriminationfrom the DISC-12 scale. Qualitative findings illustrated the pervasive nature of TS stigma, which expanded beyond micro-interactions, and which could be observed at a structural level. The peculiar impact of disparagement humour in the construction and promulgation of “othering” individuals with TS was also highlighted. Concealment and self-stigma were mechanisms commonly utilised by individuals to manage their “spoiled identity”, inhibiting active and collective responses to stigmatisation. The study highlights how TS stigma acts as a barrier to social and economic participation for adults with the condition and helps identify factors that need to be considered when developing anti-stigma strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Developmental and Physical DisabilitiesSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207