Estimating Effective Population Size and Migration Rates From Genetic Samples Over Space and Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past, moment and likelihood methods have been developed to estimate the effective population size (N(e)) on the basis of the observed changes of marker allele frequencies over time, and these have been applied to a large variety of species and populations. Such methods invariably make the critical assumption of a single isolated population receiving no immigrants over the study interval. For most populations in the real world, however, migration is not negligible and can substantially bias estimates of N(e) if it is not accounted for. Here we extend previous moment and maximum-likelihood methods to allow the joint estimation of N(e) and migration rate (m) using genetic samples over space and time. It is shown that, compared to genetic drift acting alone, migration results in changes in allele frequency that are greater in the short term and smaller in the long term, leading to under- and overestimation of N(e), respectively, if it is ignored. Extensive simulations are run to evaluate the newly developed moment and likelihood methods, which yield generally satisfactory estimates of both N(e) and m for populations with widely different effective sizes and migration rates and patterns, given a reasonably large sample size and number of markers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".