HUBUNGAN ANTARA SELF EFFICACY DENGAN QUARTERLIFE CRISIS PADA MAHASISWA TINGKAT AKHIR DI KOTA SEMARANG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstrak Quarter life crisis merupakan krisis identitas yang terjadi akibat dari ketidakpastian individu pada proses masa transisi dari remaja menuju dewasa. Beberapa penelitian membuktikan bahwa quarter life crisis memiliki hubungan dengan self efficacy. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menguji hubungan antara self efficacy dengan quarter life crisis pada mahasiswa tingkat akhir di Kota Semarang. Metode yang digunakan adalah kuantitatif korelasional. Subjek penelitian ini adalah mahasiswa Tingkat akhir yang sedang berkuliah di Universitas di Kota Semarang. Responden terdiri dari 164 mahasiswa dengan teknik pengambilan sampel accidental sampling. Pengukuran quarter life crisis menggunakan Skala Quarter Life Crisis dari Robbins & Wilner (2001) sedangkan pengukuran self efficacy menggunakan Skala Self Efficacy dari Adelina (2018). Hipotesis pada penelitian ini adalah adanya hubungan negatif antara self efficacy dengan quarter life crisis. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan terdapat hubungan negatif yang sangat signifikan antara self efficacy dengan quarter life crisis (r = -0,785; p<0,01). Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ini, hipotesis diterima sehingga dapat disimpulkan bahwa semakin tinggi self efficacy maka semakin rendah quarter life crisis dan sebaliknya semakin rendah self efficacy maka semakin tinggi quarter life crisis. Kata Kunci: Self Efficacy, Quarter Life Crisis, Mahasiswa Tingkat Akhir
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".