Bane or Boon? The Role of Spirituality, Religion, and Well-Being in Later Life Across Diverse Older Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Older adults tend to be religiously-affiliated to a greater extent than any other generational cohort (ARDA,2018; Koenig, King & Carson,2012; George et al.,2013; Nelson-Becker,2018). However, their level of engagement varies across cultural and national contexts. Complex life course trajectories related to spirituality and religion mean that these domains often interface with both challenges and a search for well-being. Individuals may align with spiritual and/or religious values to a greater or lesser extent at different periods in their lives becoming more spiritual/religious, less spiritual/religious, or differently so. These papers address diverse perspectives on spirituality, religion, and well-being using samples primarily from the UK, Europe, the US, and Canada. The first paper by Christina Victor sets context by comparing the role of religion, and spirituality in well-being across three separate older adult data sets, touching on loneliness and dementia. Holly Nelson-Becker discusses results from an online international survey of older persons who walked the ancient Camino de Santiago pilgrimage regarding their motivations and learning from the experience. Michael Thomas considers the complex role of spirituality and sexuality for older LGB couples who may choose to remain in or leave their religious faith as they integrate expanding views. Keith Anderson explores perceptions of belief changes among religious and spiritual older adults across the life course. Together, these papers will address benefit and harm from formal religious practice and the advancing roles of spirituality as well as nonspirituality (the “nones”) in global societies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".