On the bias of recombination fractions, Kosambi's and Haldane's distances based on frequencies of gametes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The estimation of recombination frequencies is a crucial step in genetic mapping. For the construction of linkage maps, nonadditive recombination fractions must be transformed into additive map distances. Two of the most commonly used transformations are Kosambi's and Haldane's mapping functions. This paper reports on the calculation of the bias associated with estimation of recombination fractions, Kosambi's distances, and Haldane's distances. I calculated absolute and relative biases numerically for a wide range of recombination fractions and sample sizes. I assumed that the ratio of recombinant gametes to the total number of gametes can be adequately represented by a binomial function. I found that the bias in recombination fraction estimates is negative, i.e., the estimator is an underestimate. However, significant values were only obtained when recombination fractions were large and sample sizes were small. The relevant estimates of recombination fractions were, therefore, nearly unbiased. Haldane's and Kosambi's distances were found to be strongly biased, with positive bias for the most interesting values of recombination fractions and sample sizes. The bias of Kosambi's distance was considerably smaller than the bias of Haldane's distance.
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 | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".