MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412065627 · doi:10.61796/icossh.v2i3.38

THE ROLE OF RELIGIOSITY AND LONELINESS ON QUARTER LIFE CRISIS IN STUDENTS OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SIDOARJO (UMSIDA)

2025· article· en· W4412065627 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Khasyya Aulia Rachma, Ghozali Rusyid Affandi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceeding of International Conference on Social Science and Humanity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligiosityLonelinessQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologySocial psychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Quarter Life Crisis is a state of feeling that arises when individuals reach their twenties, where they will feel worried about the future, especially related to work and the surrounding environment. This correlational quantitative research aims to analyze the role of religiosity and loneliness on quarter life crisis. Method: This study involved a sample of 263 respondents, by applying accidental sampling technique. The instrument used in this study is to use three psychological scales namely the quarter life crisis scale, religiosity scale and loneliness scale. The data analysis technique used in this study is multiple linear regression with the IBM SPSS version 26.0 program for windows. Results: The results of this study, that there is a significant role between religiosity and loneliness on quarter life crisis, which is 23%. Then, there is a negative role between religiosity on quarter life crisis and there is a positive role between loneliness on quarter life crisis. Novelty: In particular, this study tries to combine two variables (X), namely Religiosity and Loneliness, to see the contribution of these two variables to the phenomenon that is experienced by many early adult individuals or students, namely 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 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 score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.332 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceeding of International Conference on Social Science and HumanitySame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207