When central populations exhibit more genetic diversity than peripheral populations: A simulation study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central-peripheral population hypothesis (CPH) predicts that peripheral populations have reduced genetic variability. Therefore, it is often assumed that they deserve higher conservation priority over central populations. We examined this hypothesis using computer simulations with the objective of determining the range of species properties (parameters) under which a species is likely to exhibit the CPH pattern. The interaction between migration, genetic drift, and time of population establishment was examined; in particular, various parameters of migration, such as mode of dispersal, migration rate, and maximum migration distance, were investigated. The CPH pattern was observed only within a narrow parameter window of various species properties. Active dispersers with low migration rate and moderate maximum migration distance were more likely to have higher genetic diversity in the central populations than in the peripheral populations. Newly established populations were also more likely to exhibit the CPH pattern. Although migration rate appeared to be the most important determining factor, sensitivity analysis suggested that the interaction between parameters is probably more important than any single parameter. Our findings have important implications for conservation programs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it