Applications of random forest feature selection for fine‐scale genetic population assignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genetic population assignment used to inform wildlife management and conservation efforts requires panels of highly informative genetic markers and sensitive assignment tests. We explored the utility of machine‐learning algorithms (random forest, regularized random forest and guided regularized random forest) compared with FST ranking for selection of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) for fine‐scale population assignment. We applied these methods to an unpublished SNP data set for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and a published SNP data set for Alaskan Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In each species, we identified the minimum panel size required to obtain a self‐assignment accuracy of at least 90% using each method to create panels of 50–700 markers Panels of SNPs identified using random forest‐based methods performed up to 7.8 and 11.2 percentage points better than FST‐selected panels of similar size for the Atlantic salmon and Chinook salmon data, respectively. Self‐assignment accuracy ≥90% was obtained with panels of 670 and 384 SNPs for each data set, respectively, a level of accuracy never reached for these species using FST‐selected panels. Our results demonstrate a role for machine‐learning approaches in marker selection across large genomic data sets to improve assignment for management and conservation of exploited populations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".