HUBUNGAN KEMATANGAN EMOSI DENGAN QUARTER LIFE CRISIS PADA DEWASA AWAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early adulthood is a period of transition so that individuals will face many pressures and demands from the environment and from within themselves. Individuals who are unable to face the problems of the existence of these demands will be predicted to experience a quarter life crisis. Quarter life crisis is a period of crisis experienced by individuals between the ages of 20 to 30 years. One of the factors that affect the quarter life crisis is emotion. The purpose of this study is to find out whether there is a relationship between emotional maturity and the quarter life crisis. This study uses a correlational quantitative approach. Research subjects were taken using accidental sampling technique obtained as many as 345 people aged 20-30 years. The data analysis technique used is Pearson Product Moment correlation using SPSS 26. The results of this study indicate that there is a relationship between emotional maturity and quarter life crisis r = -0.306 (sig. 0.000 < 0.05). It can be concluded that there is a negative relationship between emotional maturity and the quarter life crisis, namely the higher a person's level of emotional maturity, the lower the quarter life crisis he experiences. Conversely, the lower a person's level of emotional maturity, the higher the level of quarter life crisis experienced.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".