MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7129715601 · doi:10.24425/ppb.2025.153982

The Quarter-Life Crisis – Pilot Reports

2025· article· pl· W7129715601 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Monika Dacka, Agnieszka Kulik, Natalia Mazur

Bibliographic record

VenuePolish Psychological Bulletin · 2025
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyQuarter (Canadian coin)Scale (ratio)Quality of life (healthcare)Young adultComputer-assisted web interviewingTraitTrait anxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging adulthood is a stage in human development characterised by instability and experimentation in undertaken roles. Young people entering adulthood undertaking developmental tasks may experience a quarter-life crisis. The research aims to increase knowledge about the quarter-life crisis and to explore its features by analysing young people's behaviour. An online survey was conducted on 139 participants (121 females and 18 males) aged 18–36 years (M=25.06; SD=3.56). The study was a pilot project. The questionnaire used in the study was the Developmental Crisis Questionnaire (DCQ-12), Hopelessness Scale (HS), Stress and Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). The number of total categories analysed qualitatively using Quinlan's algorithm was 246. The use of a decision tree made it possible to distinguish two groups of women and men differing in their experience of support and in understanding of the young person's problems. Women forming unsupported sub-models experience uncertainty, insecurity and a contradictory self-image, while the male sub-models experience a focus on the experienced emotions and a limitation of their activity. Women experiencing peer support build sub-models related to a positive vision of their own future, while men experience a lot of anxiety about their own future despite the support they receive. The study indicates that young people in quarter life crisis differ in terms of the experienced support and the used adaptation strategies. Implementing support strategies, for those experiencing a crisis without external support, can improve the quality of their life and enhance their functioning in developmental tasks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolish Psychological BulletinSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207