An improved method for predicting the accuracy of genetic stock identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating the accuracy of genetic stock identification (GSI) that can be expected given a previously collected baseline requires simulation. The conventional method involves repeatedly simulating mixtures by resampling from the baseline, simulating new baselines by resampling from the baseline, and analyzing the simulated mixtures with the simulated baselines. We show that this overestimates the predicted accuracy of GSI. The bias is profound for closely related populations and increases as more genetic data (loci and (or) alleles) are added to the analysis. We develop a new method based on leave-one-out cross validation and show that it yields essentially unbiased estimates of GSI accuracy. Applying both our method and the conventional method to a coastwide baseline of 166 Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) populations shows that the conventional method provides severely biased predictions of accuracy for some individual populations. The bias for reporting units (aggregations of closely related populations) is moderate, but still present.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".