The Relationship between the Self-efficacy and Life Satisfaction of Young Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it