THE POWER OF PURPOSE FOR AGING WELL: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE HUMANITIES AND ARTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The symposium will explore how purpose in life contributes to aging well. Presenters will debate whether purpose in life is predicted by vital involvement in old age, religiosity, spirituality, and wisdom, and what the mechanisms might be that link life purpose to subjective and psychological well-being in old age. Hanne Laceulle offers a critical, philosophical investigation of the relations between purpose, eudaimonia, and self-realization, given the limited time-horizon that older adults face. Helen Kivnick discusses how personal values, strategies, and Erikson’s concept of vital involvement in old age are connected and exemplified in a nursing home resident who is an elder role model and has realized a life of purpose. Using qualitative interview data, Jenni Spännäri examines how religion, spirituality, spiritual seeking, and religious communities help older retirement migrants, who divide their time between Finland and Spain, find meaning in life. Finally, Monika Ardelt and Michel Ferrari use cross-sectional data of 111 older adults (age range 62–99 years, M=77) and 100 young adults (age range 21–30 years, M=24) from the US and Canada and multi-group path analysis to show that the association between wisdom and well-being was partially mediated by a sense of mastery and purpose in life. The relation between religiosity and well-being was also mediated by mastery and purpose in life among US young adults, but purpose in life alone partially mediated the association among older adults. Our discussant, Thomas Cole, will critically summarize the individual contributions and discuss how the presentations are related to each other.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".