MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403119247 · doi:10.1101/2024.10.04.616691

Bilingualism Modulates Executive Function Development in Pre-School Aged Children: A Preliminary Study

2024· preprint· en· W4403119247 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sally Sade, Scott Rathwell, Bryan Kolb, Claudia L. R. Gonzalez, Robbin Gibb

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscience of multilingualismPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyFunction (biology)Executive functionsCognitionPsychiatryBiologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This preliminary study was conducted to explore the effects of bilingualism on executive function development in children ages 3-5-years old. Two groups (bilinguals and monolinguals) were recruited across various sites in Southern Alberta. Children were assessed through parent rated executive function using the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function – Preschool version, a standardized assessment of executive function in children aged 2 years, 0 months through 5 years, 11 months. The questionnaire contains 63 items measuring 5 aspects of executive functioning, inhibit, shift, emotional control, working memory, and plan/organize. Children were also assessed using a battery of executive function tasks, which include the reverse categorization, pictorial Stroop, Dimensional Change Card Sort, backward digit span, and dyadic social play. Results show that bilingual children outperform monolinguals on the emotional control scale, dimensional change card sort and dyadic social play. Despite the controversial literature surrounding bilingualisms impact on executive function, the study reveals support for second language use to improve areas of executive function among young children.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207