Performance of Marker-Based Relatedness Estimators in Natural Populations of Outbred Vertebrates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of relatedness between pairs of individuals plays an important role in many research areas including evolutionary biology, quantitative genetics, and conservation. Pairwise relatedness estimation methods based on genetic data from highly variable molecular markers are now used extensively as a substitute for pedigrees. Although the sampling variance of the estimators has been intensively studied for the most common simple genetic relationships, such as unrelated, half- and full-sib, or parent-offspring, little attention has been paid to the average performance of the estimators, by which we mean the performance across all pairs of individuals in a sample. Here we apply two measures to quantify the average performance: first, misclassification rates between pairs of genetic relationships and, second, the proportion of variance explained in the pairwise relatedness estimates by the true population relatedness composition (i.e., the frequencies of different relationships in the population). Using simulated data derived from exceptionally good quality marker and pedigree data from five long-term projects of natural populations, we demonstrate that the average performance depends mainly on the population relatedness composition and may be improved by the marker data quality only within the limits of the population relatedness composition. Our five examples of vertebrate breeding systems suggest that due to the remarkably low variance in relatedness across the population, marker-based estimates may often have low power to address research questions of interest.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it