Chapter 15. Cognitive mechanisms underlying performance differences between monolinguals and bilinguals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lifelong experience with multiple languages is believed to produce a number of executive function advantages including enhanced top-down control, improved attention, and greater working memory capacity. This bilingual advantage is generally believed to be the result of having multiple lexical representations in each language that compete for selection. More specifically, the control that is required to select the relevant from the irrelevant language in any given context is believed to require cognitive control, and practicing this control leads to enhanced executive functioning. However, the specific underlying mechanisms of language control, including inhibition, monitoring, attention, and disengagement, that lead to enhanced executive functioning are still largely unknown. This is partly due to the complex nature of both language and domain general executive functions, which are multi-faceted. Here, we highlight some possibilities for disentangling the underlying mechanisms of executive function contributing to performance differences between monolinguals and bilinguals, and suggest that disengagement of attention from previous information is an important mechanism to consider.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it