Quarter Life Crisis in College Students: How Do Religiosity and Self-Efficacy Affect?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to analyzw the influence of religiosity and self-efficacy on the quarter-life crisis in final-year college students. The respondents in this study were final-year students of UIN Sayyid Ali Rahmatullah Tulungagung. The study had 323 respondents aged around 20-24 years. The research sample was taken using a non-probability sampling technique, with the respondent criteria being final-year students of the 2019 batch of UIN Sayyid Ali Rahmatullah Tulungagung. We used three instruments: the religiosity scale, self-efficacy scale, and quarter-life crisis scale, that had been declared valid and reliable. The data were tested and analyzed using the classical assumption test and multiple linear regression analysis with partial t-test hypothesis testing and simultaneous F-test. The results of the study showed that religiosity and self-efficacy simultaneously had a significant effect on quarter-life crisis and a negative impact on it, meaning that if there were an increase in religiosity and self-efficacy, the level of quarter-life crisis would decrease. The results of the analysis of the percentage of influence of each variable obtained a percentage value of negative impact on quarter-life crisis of 6.9% on the religiosity variable and 19.6% on the self-efficacy variable. This finding implies that increasing the religiosity and self-efficacy of students can be an effective strategy to reduce psychological stress related to quarter-life crises and can be used as a basis for developing prevention and intervention programs in higher education environments Keywords: religiosity, self-efficacy, quarter life crisis
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".