Using parentage analysis to examine gene flow and spatial genetic structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous approaches have been developed to examine recent and historical gene flow between populations, but few studies have used empirical data sets to compare different approaches. Some methods are expected to perform better under particular scenarios, such as high or low gene flow, but this, too, has rarely been tested. In this issue of Molecular Ecology, Saenz-Agudelo et al. (2009) apply assignment tests and parentage analysis to microsatellite data from five geographically proximal (2-6 km) and one much more distant (1500 km) panda clownfish populations, showing that parentage analysis performed better in situations of high gene flow, while their assignment tests did better with low gene flow. This unusually complete data set is comprised of multiple exhaustively sampled populations, including nearly all adults and large numbers of juveniles, enabling the authors to ask questions that in many systems would be impossible to answer. Their results emphasize the importance of selecting the right analysis to use, based on the underlying model and how well its assumptions are met by the populations to be analysed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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".