Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tourette Syndrome is almost exclusively seen through the lens of disruptive tics. The most relevant clinical question seems to be: how to combat tics? In line with emerging calls from those diagnosed, we argue for a more positive approach focused on the Tourettic person, rather than on disruptions flowing from tics. This change of focus is ethically motivated but has important theoretical implications. As an exercise in ‘letting be’ (i.e. of finding out what something is on its own terms, through sensitively interacting with it), it brings out the basic relationalities of Tourette’s with both the non-human and the social environment. Echoing Tourettic lived experience, disruptive tics then emerge as the tips of icebergs consisting of spontaneous, even playful, interactions with the environment. A more nuanced view emerges in which problems experienced by those diagnosed are no longer located in individual brains but require comprehensive study of how tics situationally develop. Listening attentively to lived experience reports leads to a dramatic shift away from the classical ‘lack of inhibition’ model, to reveal a constant pressure to inhibit actions that one feels strongly and spontaneously compelled to do. This inhibition is dependent on what is signaled as disruptive by others and is therefore suppressed for their sake. The Tourettic person’s distress or felt impairment seems more tied to an onlooker’s focus on their tics, than on the severity and frequency of their tics. We conclude that ‘letting be’ is an attitude towards Tourette’s that is worth considering, both clinically and theoretically. In fact, we believe that the overall good prognosis as to felt impairment correlates with finding trusted environments where one is ‘let be’ (without being ‘let go of’) instead of living under constant scrutiny.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".