The Relation between Self-efficacy and Quarter-Life Crisis in Final Year Students
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
Final-year students will enter a new phase, that is looking for work, getting married, and building a household. This mak es the students experience emotional tension such as stress, fear, anxiety, feeling doubtful about their own abilities in facing the future related to career, finances, and interpersonal relationships. This is usually known as the quarter-life crisis phase. Feeling doubt about abilities is an indication of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is an individual's assessment of one's ability to solve problems, deal with tasks, and achieve goals. This study aims to determine the relationship between self-efficacy and quarter-life crisis in final-year students. This research uses quantitative methods. The number of respondents in this study was 307 final-year students from public and private universities. This research uses nonparametric statistical analysis to test Spearman’s rho. The results of the study show that there is a negative relationship between self-efficacy and quarter-life crisis in final-year students (r = -0.728 and p = 0.000). The higher the self-efficacy of final-year students, the lower quarter-life crisis experienced by final-year students, and vice versa. This research is expected to be a source of information for final year students in knowing the importance of increasing self-efficacy in dealing quarter life crisis phase.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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