Data depth, data completeness, and their influence on quantitative genetic estimation in two contrasting bird populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary biologists increasingly use pedigree-based quantitative genetic methods to address questions about the evolutionary dynamics of traits in wild populations. In many cases, phenotypic data may have been collected only for recent parts of the study. How does this influence the performance of the models used to analyse these data? Here we explore how data depth (number of years) and completeness (number of observations) influence estimates of genetic variance and covariance within the context of an existing pedigree. Using long-term data from the great tit Parus major and the mute swan Cygnus olor, species with different life-histories, we examined the effect of manipulating the amount of data included on quantitative genetic parameter estimates. Manipulating data depth and completeness had little influence on estimated genetic variances, heritabilities, or genetic correlations, but (as expected) did influence confidence in these estimates. Estimated breeding values in the great tit were not influenced by data depth but were in the mute swan, probably because of differences in pedigree structure. Our analyses suggest the 'rule of thumb' that data from 3 years and a minimum of 100 individuals per year are needed to estimate genetic parameters with acceptable confidence, and that using pedigree data is worthwhile, even if phenotypes are only available toward the tips of the pedigree.
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 | 0.050 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| 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".