Stigma and Adults with Tourette’s Syndrome: “Never Laugh at Other People’s Disabilities, Unless they have Tourette’s—Because How Can You Not?”
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 both Enacted and Anticipated Discrimination from 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it