THE RELATIONSHIP OF HOPE WITH QUARTER LIFE CRISIS IN FINAL YEAR STUDENTS IN WEST SUMATRA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to determine the relationship between hope and quarter life crisis in final year students in West Sumatra. Hope is the ability possessed by an individual to create a strategy in achieving a goal with the overall motivation he has to recognize the strategy chosen in achieving a goal. Meanwhile, the quarter life crisis is a process of high instability, drastic changes, too many choices and feelings of panic and helplessness. This phase appears in individuals aged 18 to 29 years. This research uses quantitative methods with a quantitative correlational research design. The population in this study were final year students in West Sumatra with a total of 195 students as subjects. The sampling technique used was purposive sampling. The data collection tool uses the quarter life hope and crisis scale. Data analysis uses the product moment correlation coefficient. The results of the research show that there is a negative relationship between hope and the quarter life crisis in final year students in West Sumatra (r=-0.514: p=0.00). A significant negative relationship means that if an individual has high hopes then the level of quarter life crisis for the individual will be low, and if the level of quarter life crisis is high then the level of hope experienced by the individual will tend to be low.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".