HUBUNGAN QUARTER LIFE CRISIS DAN RELIGIUSITAS DENGAN PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING PADA DEWASA AWAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals are said to have good psychological well-being when they are able to see themselves positively, able to make their own decisions, able to organize their own needs so that they can function positively. If the individual does not have good psychological well-being it will affect the period of individuals such as experiencing anxiety, depression and other forms of symptoms of psychological disorders. This study aims to determine the relationship between quarter life crisis and religiosity with psychological well-being in early adulthood. The subjects in this study were 152 adulthood aged 18-29 years who live in the Special Region of Yogyakarta using the snow ball sampling technique. This research method is quantitative correlational. The research hypothesis test uses multiple linear regression and produces a significance value of 0.000 <0.05, which means that the research hypothesis is accepted. The results of the analysis show that there is a relationship between quarter life crisis and religiosity with psychological well-being in early adulthood with a different direction of relationship. The quarter life crisis affects psychological well-being in a negative direction, which means that the higher the quarter life crisis , the lower the psychological well-being . Meanwhile, religiosity influences psychological well-being in a positive direction, which means that the higher the religiosity, the higher the psychological well-being . Then the effective contribution of quarter life crisis and religiosity to psychological well-being is 45.2%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".