MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398171165 · doi:10.62260/intrend.v1i2.105

THE RELATIONSHIP OF HOPE WITH QUARTER LIFE CRISIS IN FINAL YEAR STUDENTS IN WEST SUMATRA

2024· article· en· W4398171165 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dinda aisyah, Rinaldi Rinaldi

Bibliographic record

VenueIn Trend International Journal of Trends in Global Psychological Science and Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)HistoryGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.391 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIn Trend International Journal of Trends in Global Psychological Science and EducationSame topicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and MotivationFrench-language works237,207