Node‐based measures of connectivity in genetic networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At-site environmental conditions can have strong influences on genetic connectivity, and in particular on the immigration and settlement phases of dispersal. However, at-site processes are rarely explored in landscape genetic analyses. Networks can facilitate the study of at-site processes, where network nodes are used to model site-level effects. We used simulated genetic networks to compare and contrast the performance of 7 node-based (as opposed to edge-based) genetic connectivity metrics. We simulated increasing node connectivity by varying migration in two ways: we increased the number of migrants moving between a focal node and a set number of recipient nodes, and we increased the number of recipient nodes receiving a set number of migrants. We found that two metrics in particular, the average edge weight and the average inverse edge weight, varied linearly with simulated connectivity. Conversely, node degree was not a good measure of connectivity. We demonstrated the use of average inverse edge weight to describe the influence of at-site habitat characteristics on genetic connectivity of 653 American martens (Martes americana) in Ontario, Canada. We found that highly connected nodes had high habitat quality for marten (deep snow and high proportions of coniferous and mature forest) and were farther from the range edge. We recommend the use of node-based genetic connectivity metrics, in particular, average edge weight or average inverse edge weight, to model the influences of at-site habitat conditions on the immigration and settlement phases of dispersal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".