A robust new metric of phenotypic distance to estimate and compare multiple trait differences among populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Whereas a rich literature exists for estimating population genetic divergence, metrics of phenotypic trait divergence are lacking, particularly for comparing multiple traits among three or more populations. Here, we review and analyze via simulation Hedges’ g, a widely used parametric estimate of effect size. Our analyses indicate that g is sensitive to a combination of unequal trait variances and unequal sample sizes among populations and to changes in the scale of measurement. We then go on to derive and explain a new, non-parametric distance measure, “Δp”, which is calculated based upon a joint cumulative distribution function (CDF) from all populations under study. More precisely, distances are measured in terms of the percentiles in this CDF at which each population’s median lies. Δp combines many desirable features of other distance metrics into a single metric; namely, compared to other metrics, p is relatively insensitive to unequal variances and sample sizes among the populations sampled. Furthermore, a key feature of Δp—and our main motivation for developing it—is that it easily accommodates simultaneous comparisons of any number of traits across any number of populations. To exemplify its utility, we employ Δp to address a question related to the role of sexual selection in speciation: are sexual signals more divergent than ecological traits in closely related taxa? Using traits of known function in closely related populations, we show that traits predictive of reproductive performance are, indeed, more divergent and more sexually dimorphic than traits related to ecological adaptation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".