Power for detecting genetic divergence: differences between statistical methods and marker loci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information on statistical power is critical when planning investigations and evaluating empirical data, but actual power estimates are rarely presented in population genetic studies. We used computer simulations to assess and evaluate power when testing for genetic differentiation at multiple loci through combining test statistics or P values obtained by four different statistical approaches, viz. Pearson's chi-square, the log-likelihood ratio G-test, Fisher's exact test, and an F(ST)-based permutation test. Factors considered in the comparisons include the number of samples, their size, and the number and type of genetic marker loci. It is shown that power for detecting divergence may be substantial for frequently used sample sizes and sets of markers, also at quite low levels of differentiation. The choice of statistical method may be critical, though. For multi-allelic loci such as microsatellites, combining exact P values using Fisher's method is robust and generally provides a high resolving power. In contrast, for few-allele loci (e.g. allozymes and single nucleotide polymorphisms) and when making pairwise sample comparisons, this approach may yield a remarkably low power. In such situations chi-square typically represents a better alternative. The G-test without Williams's correction frequently tends to provide an unduly high proportion of false significances, and results from this test should be interpreted with great care. Our results are not confined to population genetic analyses but applicable to contingency testing in general.
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 | 0.232 | 0.537 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".