Flexible methods for estimating genetic distances from nucleotide data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing use of massively parallel sequencing approaches in evolutionary biology, the need for fast and accurate methods suitable to investigate genetic structure and evolutionary history are more important than ever. We propose new distance measures for estimating genetic distances between individuals when allelic variation, gene dosage and recombination could compromise standard approaches. We present four distance measures based on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and evaluate them against previously published measures using coalescent- based simulations. Simulations were used to test (i) whether the measures give unbiased and accurate distance estimates, (ii) whether they can accurately identify the genomic mixture of hybrid individuals and (iii) whether they give precise (low variance) estimates. The effect of rate variation among genes and recombination was also investigated. The results showed that the SNP-based GENPOFAD distance we propose appears to work well in the widest range of circumstances. It was the most accurate and precise method for estimating genetic distances and is also relatively good at estimating the genomic mixture of hybrid individuals. Our simulations provide benchmarks to compare the performance of different method that estimate genetic distances between organisms.
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 | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".