A LIKELIHOOD-BASED APPROACH TO ESTIMATING AND TESTING FOR ISOLATION BY DISTANCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simple regression of genetic similarities between pairs of populations on their corresponding geographic distances is frequently used to detect the presence of isolation by distance (IBD). However, these pairwise values are obviously not independent and there is no parametric procedure for estimating and testing for the IBD intercepts and slopes based on standard regression theory. Nonparametric tests, such as the Mantel test, and resampling techniques, such as bootstrapping, have been exploited with limited success. Here, I describe a likelihood-based analysis to allow for simultaneously detecting patterns of correlated residuals and estimating and testing for the presence of IBD. It is shown, through the analysis of two molecular datasets in pine species, that different covariance structures of the residuals exist. More over, the likelihood ratio tests under these covariance structures are less sensitive to the presence of IBD than the Mantel test and the simple regression analysis but more sensitive than the bootstrap and jackknife samples over independent populations or population pairs. Because the likelihood analysis directly models and accounts for nonindependence of residuals, it should legitimately detect the presence of IBD, thereby allowing for accurate inferences about evolutionary and demographic processes influencing the extent and patterns of IBD.
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 | 0.028 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".