Disentangling language status and country-of-origin explanations of the bilingual advantage in preschoolers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bilingual preschoolers from East Asia outperform monolingual preschoolers from North America or Europe in executive functioning tasks, which has been interpreted as evidence of a bilingual advantage in executive functioning. This study tested whether these differences actually reflect country-of-origin effects given that East Asian preschoolers frequently outperform North American or European children in executive functioning tasks. Consistent with previous findings, Korean-English bilingual preschoolers made fewer errors in an age-appropriate executive functioning task than did English monolingual children in Canada. However, Korean-English bilingual preschoolers performed comparably to Korean monolingual preschoolers in Korea. Differences between Korean and Canadian children's executive functioning were not attributable to differences in parental cultural values or attitudes. The current findings suggest that differences between East Asian bilingual and North American monolingual preschoolers' executive functioning is related to differences in country of origin rather than language status.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".