MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409865961 · doi:10.61132/observasi.v3i2.1121

The Influence of Self-Esteem, Social Support and Quarter Life Crisis in Early Adults

2025· article· en· W4409865961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wardha Hayati Khailia

Bibliographic record

VenueObservasi Jurnal Publikasi Ilmu Psikologi · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Self-esteemPsychologySocial supportDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When individuals enter the early adult stage, they are faced with many demands and challenges from those around them. Individuals who are unable to adapt to the various problems they face and are unable to progress to the expected stage of development will experience various psychological problems, such as quarter life crisis. The purpose of this study is to examine how much influence self-esteem and social support have on quarter life crisis in early adulthood. The participants of this study amounted to 106 male and female early adults in the Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang and Bekasi areas. The approach used in this study is a quantitative approach. The sample determination used non-probability sampling technique, namely purposive sampling. The results of this study indicate that there is an influence between self-esteem and social support on quarter life crisis by 22.4%. This research self-esteem has a stronger influence than social support, because in the early adult phase it is able to make a meaningful contribution to the next process of individual life, as well as for healthy personal development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObservasi Jurnal Publikasi Ilmu PsikologiSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207