Peran Religiusitas dalam Menghadapi Quarter Life Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quarter life crisis merupakan fase kehidupan yang dipenuhi perasaan cemas, takut, dan bimbang akan kehidupan di masa depan sedangkan religiusitas sebagai salah satu proses coping untuk mengurangi pikiran-pikiran negatif tersebut dalam menghadapi krisis seperempat abad. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh religiusitas dalam menghadapi quarter life crisis. Hipotesis yang diajukan adalah religiusitas berpengaruh terhadap quarter life crisis. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif dengan metode survei. Teknik accidental sampling digunakan untuk menentukan subjek dalam penelitian ini. Subjek penelitian berjumlah 185 orang (133 perempuan dan 52 laki-laki) yang berada pada rentang usia 18-29 tahun. Instrumen penelitian yang digunakan adalah abhrahamic religiosity scale dan quarter life crisis scale. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan adanya pengaruh religiusitas dengan quarter life crisis 0,007 (α < 0,05) dengan arah pengaruh negatif, yang berarti apabila variabel religiusitas meningkat maka akan diikuti turunnya variabel quarter life crisis. \n \nQuarter life crisis is a phase of life filled with feelings of anxiety, fear, and doubt about life in the future, while religiosity is one of the coping processes that reduces these negative thoughts to face quarter life crisis. This study aims to determine the effect of religiosity in dealing with the quarter life crisis. The hypothesis proposed was that religiosity has effects on the quarter life crisis. This study uses a quantitative approach using a survey method that was applied to assess. Accidental sampling technique was used to determine the subject in this study. The research subjects are 185 people (133 women and 52 men) who are in the age range of 18-29 years old. The research instruments used were the abhrahamic religiosity scale and the quarter life crisis scale. The results of this study indicate that there is an influence of religiosity on the quarter life crisis of 0.007 (α <0.05) with a negative direction, which means that if the religiosity level increases, it will be followed by a decrease in the level of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".