Stepwise detection of recombination breakpoints in sequence alignments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: We propose a stepwise approach to identify recombination breakpoints in a sequence alignment. The approach can be applied to any recombination detection method that uses a permutation test and provides estimates of breakpoints. RESULTS: We illustrate the approach by analyses of a simulated dataset and alignments of real data from HIV-1 and human chromosome 7. The presented simulation results compare the statistical properties of one-step and two-step procedures. More breakpoints are found with a two-step procedure than with a single application of a given method, particularly for higher recombination rates. At higher recombination rates, the additional breakpoints were located at the cost of only a slight increase in the number of falsely declared breakpoints. However, a large proportion of breakpoints still go undetected. AVAILABILITY: A makefile and C source code for phylogenetic profiling and the maximum chi2 method, tested with the gcc compiler on Linux and WindowsXP, are available at http://stat-db.stat.sfu.ca/stepwise/ CONTACT: jgraham@stat.sfu.ca.
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 | 0.009 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".