MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388637374 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1155158

Multilingualism, multicultural experience, cognition, and creativity

2023· article· en· W4388637374 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Fürst, François Grin

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on Organizations
FundersUniversité de Genève
KeywordsMultilingualismCreativityPsychologyNeuroscience of multilingualismCognitionMulticulturalismCognitive psychologyPerspective (graphical)Divergent thinkingSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The once widely held notion that bilingualism is related to enhanced cognitive functions has recently been challenged, in particular among young adults, as opposed to children and older adults. This strand of research, however, is essentially focused on executive functions (e.g., attention, inhibition, and shifting). But there is another side to the bilingualism-cognition story. Indeed, growing evidence has shown that bilingualism, and by extension multilingualism, are associated with enhanced creativity. However, this relation is arguably quite complex, for several reasons. First, creativity is a fuzzy notion; it is usually conceptualized as a mix of cognitive, personality and motivational factors. Second, multilingual people generally have a richer multicultural experience than monolingual people. In addition, multicultural experience itself is also positively related to creativity. Hence, there are manifold relations between cognition, creativity, multilingualism, and multicultural experience. In this brief research report, using a latent variables model which replicates some of our recent findings, we show that both multilingualism and multicultural experience are positively associated with creativity, even when controlling for cognitive abilities (divergent thinking and intelligence). We discuss these results in a perspective that considers methodological challenges and factors that are relevant to goal-directed behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207