Adventure and Spiritual Restoration: Older Adult Motivations for Undertaking a Pilgrimage on El Camino de Santiago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pilgrimage is an intentional journey undertaken for reasons that can increase a sense of well-being. Although originally completed for religious purposes, motives in contemporary times may include anticipated religious, spiritual, and humanistic benefits as well as appreciation of culture and geography. This quantitative and qualitative survey research explored the motivations of a sample subset age 65 and over from a larger study who completed one of the Camino de Santiago de Compostela routes in Spain. Consistent with life course and developmental theory, some respondents walked at life decision points. The analyzed sample was 111 people, nearly 60% of whom were from Canada, Mexico, and the US. Nearly 42% were non-religious while 57% were Christian or a subset, Catholic. Five key themes emerged: challenge and adventure, spirituality and intrinsic motivation, cultural or historical interest, recognition of life experiences and gratitude, and relationships. In reflecting, participants wrote about sensing a call to walk and experiencing transformation. Limitations included snowball sampling, as it is difficult to systematically sample those who complete a pilgrimage. The Santiago pilgrimage counters a narrative of aging as diminishment through positioning identity, ego integrity, friendships and family, spirituality, and positive physical challenge at the center of aging.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".