MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316088016 · doi:10.33152/jmphss-6.5.4

Investigating the Relationship between Social Support and Coping Self-Efficacy with Consideration of Future Consequences during the Quarter-life Crisis

2022· article· en· W4316088016 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arubah Malik, Saria Rafiq

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Practices Humanities and Social Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Temporal Perspectives Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyModerationCoping (psychology)Quarter (Canadian coin)Social supportNonprobability samplingClinical psychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyDemographyPopulationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study aimed to focus on the quarter-life crisis mainly the first phase that required a set of commitments, so it included young adults of Pakistan from 25-35 of age who have at least graduated, had a career, and had a romantic relationship. It was hypothesized that (1) there will be a significant relationship between Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) and Coping Self-Efficacy (CSE) during the first phase of the quarter-life crisis, and (2) the CFC will impact the relationship between social support and CSE as a moderator variable during the first phase of quarter-life Crisis. Purposive sampling technique was used to collect data from 185 (M = 1.49, SD = 0.501) young adults, including males (51 %) and females (49%). They filled out an online survey that comprised of Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES), and CFC-14. For the first hypothesis, Pearson Product Correlation was administered, showing a significant moderate positive correlation (p value < 0.01) between CFC and CSF. Moreover, Regression analysis represented (R²=.337, p-value <0.01) that CFC moderates the relationship between social support and CSE. This study will help psychologists, social workers, and educationists who work with young adults and want to enhance their CSE, as it is vital to deal with challenging situations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.236
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management Practices Humanities and Social SciencesSame topicPsychological and Temporal Perspectives ResearchFrench-language works237,207