Data from: Spatial detection of outlier loci with Moran eigenvector maps (MEM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spatial signature of microevolutionary processes structuring genetic variation may play an important role in the detection of loci under selection. However, the spatial location of samples has not yet been used to quantify this. Here, we present a new two-step method of spatial outlier detection at the individual and deme levels using the power spectrum of Moran eigenvector maps (MEM). The MEM power spectrum quantifies how the variation in a variable, such as the frequency of an allele at a SNP locus, is distributed across a range of spatial scales defined by MEM spatial eigenvectors. The first step (Moran spectral outlier detection: MSOD) uses genetic and spatial information to identify outlier loci by their unusual power spectrum. The second step uses Moran spectral randomization (MSR) to test the association between outlier loci and environmental predictors, accounting for spatial autocorrelation. Using simulated data from two published papers, we tested this two-step method in different scenarios of landscape configuration, selection strength, dispersal capacity and sampling design. Under scenarios that included spatial structure, MSOD alone was sufficient to detect outlier loci at the individual and deme levels without the need for incorporating environmental predictors. Follow-up with MSR generally reduced (already low) false-positive rates, though in some cases led to a reduction in power. The results were surprisingly robust to differences in sample size and sampling design. Our method represents a new tool for detecting potential loci under selection with individual-based and population-based sampling by leveraging spatial information that has hitherto been neglected.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".