Exploring the Quarter Life Crisis: Management Dimensions and Factors Influencing Early Adulthood Transitions Across Cultures and Educational Backgrounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to identify the factors that influence the quarter-life crisis in early adulthood. A qualitative method was employed to reveal and understand this phenomenon within its unique context as experienced by individuals. Data were collected through observation and interviews and were analyzed using coding techniques. The findings indicate that anxiety about the future, pressure from family, fear of disappointing parents, and low self-confidence are key factors. Individuals also tend to compare themselves with others, particularly those deemed more successful. Various emotional responses, including frustration, hopelessness, and disappointment, were identified. The study also highlights the role of religious beliefs in coping with the crisis, although not all participants found this approach effective. Support from family and close friends is considered essential in overcoming the crisis, along with accepting one’s life process and engaging in self-exploration. Educational institutions can support early adults by offering mentorship, career guidance, and stress management programs, helping students navigate the quarter-life crisis and transition smoothly into adulthood while promoting emotional well-being and resilience.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".