In Defense of the Pure Pilgrim: De Re Defensionibus Peregrini Castiori
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does the pure pilgrim exist? Probably not as a person, but the idea of a pure pilgrim is very much alive, although under threat. John Muir (2002), environmentalist and mountaineer, argued that there is a proper way to climb a mountain. By analogy, there is a virtuous way, allowing for meaningful, spiritual experiences which can be applied to proper peregrination. The early medieval ascetic understanding of pilgrims (St Jerome c. 347-420), was that of wandering monks, forsaking the bustling cities as to immerse themselves in the mercy of Christ in the solitude of the country (Webb, 2002). In modern times, pilgrimage has become rather a process of self-exile, of social and physical isolation, time used to try to come closer either to God or to one’s self. However, the concepts of authentic pilgrimage and pure pilgrim seem to be anachronistic, waning in popular pilgrimage culture. The Camino, traditionally the apex of the idea of pure pilgrimage, has now been ‘app’efied’ and commoditised, so that being a pure pilgrim is near-impossible from the perspective of the comfort needs of the modern post-pilgrim. The model of personal transformation, through suffering, avoidance of comfort and overcoming obstacles, seems to many to be unnecessary, even laughable. Yet, for an activity to have any meaning, one must not skirt the perceived rules that make that activity possible (Suits, 2005). The goal of a pilgrimage is not to arrive at the destination, but to arrive by means of being a pilgrim. The medieval pilgrims wanted to show God their willingness to make sacrifices in hope of salvation, which idea C.S Lewis (2012 [1952]:145), contends, saying that as long as pilgrims are thinking of a reciprocal relationship with God, this relationship remains skewed. The pure pilgrim must then be simply pure rather than presumptuous.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".