The problem of estimating recent genetic connectivity in a changing world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate understanding of population connectivity is important to conservation because dispersal can play an important role in population dynamics, microevolution, and assessments of extirpation risk and population rescue. Genetic methods are increasingly used to infer population connectivity because advances in technology have made them more advantageous (e.g., cost effective) relative to ecological methods. Given the reductions in wildlife population connectivity since the Industrial Revolution and more recent drastic reductions from habitat loss, it is important to know the accuracy of and biases in genetic connectivity estimators when connectivity has declined recently. Using simulated data, we investigated the accuracy and bias of 2 common estimators of migration (movement of individuals among populations) rate. We focused on the timing of the connectivity change and the magnitude of that change on the estimates of migration by using a coalescent-based method (Migrate-n) and a disequilibrium-based method (BayesAss). Contrary to expectations, when historically high connectivity had declined recently: (i) both methods over-estimated recent migration rates; (ii) the coalescent-based method (Migrate-n) provided better estimates of recent migration rate than the disequilibrium-based method (BayesAss); (iii) the coalescent-based method did not accurately reflect long-term genetic connectivity. Overall, our results highlight the problems with comparing coalescent and disequilibrium estimates to make inferences about the effects of recent landscape change on genetic connectivity among populations. We found that contrasting these 2 estimates to make inferences about genetic-connectivity changes over time could lead to inaccurate conclusions.
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 | 0.014 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".