Patterns of Admixture and Population Structure in Native Populations of Northwest North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The initial contact of European populations with indigenous populations of the Americas produced diverse admixture processes across North, Central, and South America. Recent studies have examined the genetic structure of indigenous populations of Latin America and the Caribbean and their admixed descendants, reporting on the genomic impact of the history of admixture with colonizing populations of European and African ancestry. However, relatively little genomic research has been conducted on admixture in indigenous North American populations. In this study, we analyze genomic data at 475,109 single-nucleotide polymorphisms sampled in indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest in British Columbia and Southeast Alaska, populations with a well-documented history of contact with European and Asian traders, fishermen, and contract laborers. We find that the indigenous populations of the Pacific Northwest have higher gene diversity than Latin American indigenous populations. Among the Pacific Northwest populations, interior groups provide more evidence for East Asian admixture, whereas coastal groups have higher levels of European admixture. In contrast with many Latin American indigenous populations, the variance of admixture is high in each of the Pacific Northwest indigenous populations, as expected for recent and ongoing admixture processes. The results reveal some similarities but notable differences between admixture patterns in the Pacific Northwest and those in Latin America, contributing to a more detailed understanding of the genomic consequences of European colonization events throughout the Americas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".