Dividing population genetic distance data with the software Partitioning Optimization with Restricted Growth Strings (PORGS): an application for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Vancouver Island, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new method of finding the optimal group membership and number of groupings to partition population genetic distance data is presented. The software program Partitioning Optimization with Restricted Growth Strings (PORGS), visits all possible set partitions and deemsacceptable partitions to be those that reduce mean intracluster distance. The optimal number of groups is determined with the gap statistic which compares PORGS results with a reference distribution. The PORGS method was validated by a simulated data set with a known distribution.For efficiency, where values of n were larger, restricted growth strings (RGS) were used to bipartition populations during a nested search (bi-PORGS). Bi-PORGS was applied to a set of genetic data from 18 Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha) populations from the west coast of Vancouver Island. The optimal grouping of these populationscorresponded to four geographic locations: 1) Quatsino Sound, 2) Nootka Sound, 3) Clayoquot +Barkley sounds,and 4) southwest Vancouver Island. However, assignment of populations to groups did not strictly reflect the geographical divisions; fish of Barkley Sound origin that had strayed into the Gold River and close genetic similaritybetween transferred and donor populations meant groupings crossed geographic boundaries. Overall, stock structure determined by this partitioning method was similar to thatdetermined by the unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic averages (UPGMA), an agglomerative clustering algorithm.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".