MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3163788239 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/zwyhf

No evidence for decreased foreign language effect in highly proficient and acculturated bilinguals

2018· preprint· en· W3163788239 on OpenAlexaff
Michał Białek, Jonathan A. Fugelsang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmForeign languageTest (biology)PsychologyNull hypothesisLinguisticsControl (management)Decision makerSocial psychologyEconometricsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMathematics educationPhilosophyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bilinguals who consider moral problems in their foreign language tend to endorse causing harm to others that if that leads to good outcomes more than they do in their native language. Čavar and Tytus (2018) reported that this effect disappears when the decision maker is highly acculturated. We challenge the latter conclusion. Specifically, the experiment reported by Čavar and Tytus (2018) utilized unvalidated and potentially unreliable materials, was underpowered, and lacked a control group. Moreover, the re-analysis of the statistical test shows that it fails to convincingly support the reported null finding. We conclude that further examination of the moral foreign language effect is needed to test its boundaries.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.169
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment→French-language works237,207→