The Relationship between the Self-efficacy and Life Satisfaction of Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between self-efficacy and life satisfaction of young adults. This study is cross-sectional study and variables. Data were collected between March 2012 and April 2012 from young adults who were bachelor degree and attending the Celal Bayar University Pedagogical Formation Program the academic term in 2011-2012. Participants consist of 405 young adults who selected by the simple random sampling. The number of women was determined to be 224 (57%) and that of men to be 181 (44%). Their mean age was 26.4. Data were collected by General Self–Efficacy Scale and The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Data was analyzed by ANOVA and regression analysis. It was determined that the self-efficacy of young adults significantly predicted their life satisfaction (48%, p=.05); also, self-efficacy and life satisfaction didn’t significantly differ among the groups in accordance with the perceived level of income. Depending on the results of this study, to raise self-efficacy of young adults can help to achieve their developmental tasks, this is vital for their healthy development and life satisfaction. It can be examine the longitudinal studies of the relationship between self-efficacy and life satisfaction in the young adulthood. Also, the factors that are effective in increasing life satisfaction can be determined through experimental studies to be performed with young adults.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".