Quarter Life of Crisis in the Millennial Group in terms of Social Comparison and Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quarterlife of crisis (QLC) is becoming a new trend for individuals who are confused about their role in society. The demands of social roles and expectations from the environment are increasing as individuals enter more complex stages of adult life. The tendency of QLC is experienced by many millennials today, especially in Semarang City. The conduct of this study aims to analyze the relationship between social comparison and resilience to quarterlife of crisis in the millennial group. The sample criteria used were aged 22-29 years and lived in the city of Semarang with a sample of 105 people. The sampling technique used is purposive sampling. The research instruments were quarterlife crisis scale (α = .898), social comparison scale (α = .859), and resilience scale (α = .943). The data analysis method used was regression analysis of two predictors and product moment correlation with JASP 0.16 software. The results of this study showed R = 0.919; R2 = 0.845 and F = 279.002 (p < .0001) means that social comparison and resilience affect the quarterlife of crisis in the millennial group. The value of the coefficient of determination of social comparison variables and resilience to quarterlife crisis variables was 84.5%. The conclusion of the study is that social comparison and resilience simultaneously affect the quarterlife crisis. The implications of the results of this study are expected to be useful not only for millennials but also parents and the surrounding community in understanding their condition about their readiness to face the future by not giving much "pressure" in the form of stigma / negative labels if they do not meet the expected standards.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".