ESTIMATING GENETIC CORRELATIONS IN NATURAL POPULATIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF PEDIGREE INFORMATION: ACCURACY AND PRECISION OF THE LYNCH METHOD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Usually, genetic correlations are estimated from breeding designs in the laboratory or greenhouse. However, estimates of the genetic correlation for natural populations are lacking, mostly because pedigrees of wild individuals are rarely known. Recently Lynch (1999) proposed a formula to estimate the genetic correlation in the absence of data on pedigree. This method has been shown to be particularly accurate provided a large sample size and a minimum (20%) proportion of relatives. Lynch (1999) proposed the use of the bootstrap to estimate standard errors associated with genetic correlations, but did not test the reliability of such a method. We tested the bootstrap and showed the jackknife can provide valid estimates of the genetic correlation calculated with the Lynch formula. The occurrence of undefined estimates, combined with the high number of replicates involved in the bootstrap, means there is a high probability of obtaining a biased upward, incomplete bootstrap, even when there is a high fraction of related pairs in a sample. It is easier to obtain complete jackknife estimates for which all the pseudovalues have been defined. We therefore recommend the use of the jackknife to estimate the genetic correlation with the Lynch formula. Provided data can be collected for more than two individuals at each location, we propose a group sampling method that produces low standard errors associated with the jackknife, even when there is a low fraction of relatives in a sample.
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 | 0.026 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".