Genetic Map Refinement Using a Comparative Genomic Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following various genetic mapping techniques conducted on different segregating populations, one or more genetic maps are obtained for a given species. However, recombination analyzes and other methods for gene mapping often fail to resolve the ordering of some pairs of neighboring markers, thereby leading to sets of markers ambiguously mapped to the same position. Each individual map is thus a partial order defined on the set of markers, and can be represented as a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). In this article, given a phylogenetic tree with a set of DAGs labeling each leaf (species), the goal is to infer, at each leaf, a single combined DAG that is as resolved as possible, considering the complementary information provided by individual maps, and the phylogenetic information provided by the species tree. After combining the individual maps of a leaf into a single DAG, we order incomparable markers by using two successive heuristics for minimizing two distances on the species tree: the breakpoint distance, and the Kemeny distance. We apply our algorithms to the plant species represented in the Gramene database, and we evaluate the simplified maps we obtained.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".