DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CANADIAN AND U.S. BILINGUALS:SOCIAL STIGMAS AFFECTING COGNITIVE TASK PERFORMANCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies conducted in Canada (e.g., Bialystok, Craik, & Ryan, 2006; Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2008) have found evidence of a bilingual advantage on cognitive task performance. However, we have yet to replicate these findings in a U.S. sample (e.g., Grant, Dennis, & Li, 2014). There is a difference between Canada and the U.S. with regard to bilingual individuals, specifically in terms of how bilingualism in Canada is perceived to be a marker of elite status, while in the U.S., bilingualism may be an indication of having immigrant status. We suggest that the discrepancies in Canadian and U.S studies on bilingualism could be attributed to a negative social stigma associated with being bilingual in the U.S. The purpose of the current study was to replicate the findings produced out of Canada in a non-stigmatized bilingual sample in the U.S. by recruiting French-English bilinguals and English-only monolinguals. All participants completed two cognitive tasks (the Simon task, the Stroop task), a language use survey, and a modified Racial Microaggression scale. The results showed that there were no cognitive performance differences in favor of the bilingual speakers however, the results of the Racial Microaggression scale showed that bilingual speakers born in the US feel more stigmatized and targeted than individuals who were not born in the US. Overall, this study was not able to replicate the findings found in the Canadian bilingualism studies because of the existing stigma that is present in the US.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".