Developing approaches for linear mixed modeling in landscape genetics through landscape‐directed dispersal simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dispersal can impact population dynamics and geographic variation, and thus, genetic approaches that can establish which landscape factors influence population connectivity have ecological and evolutionary importance. Mixed models that account for the error structure of pairwise datasets are increasingly used to compare models relating genetic differentiation to pairwise measures of landscape resistance. A model selection framework based on information criteria metrics or explained variance may help disentangle the ecological and landscape factors influencing genetic structure, yet there are currently no consensus for the best protocols. Here, we develop landscape‐directed simulations and test a series of replicates that emulate independent empirical datasets of two species with different life history characteristics (greater sage‐grouse; eastern foxsnake). We determined that in our simulated scenarios, AIC and BIC were the best model selection indices and that marginal R 2 values were biased toward more complex models. The model coefficients for landscape variables generally reflected the underlying dispersal model with confidence intervals that did not overlap with zero across the entire model set. When we controlled for geographic distance, variables not in the underlying dispersal models (i.e., nontrue) typically overlapped zero. Our study helps establish methods for using linear mixed models to identify the features underlying patterns of dispersal across a variety of landscapes.
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 | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".