Disentangling genetic structure for genetic monitoring of complex populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genetic monitoring estimates temporal changes in population parameters from molecular marker information. Most populations are complex in structure and change through time by expanding or contracting their geographic range, becoming fragmented or coalescing, or increasing or decreasing density. Traditional approaches to genetic monitoring rely on quantifying temporal shifts of specific population metrics—heterozygosity, numbers of alleles, effective population size—or measures of geographic differentiation such as FST. However, the accuracy and precision of the results can be heavily influenced by the type of genetic marker used and how closely they adhere to analytical assumptions. Care must be taken to ensure that inferences reflect actual population processes rather than changing molecular techniques or incorrect assumptions of an underlying model of population structure. In many species of conservation concern, true population structure is unknown, or structure might shift over time. In these cases, metrics based on inappropriate assumptions of population structure may not provide quality information regarding the monitored population. Thus, we need an inference model that decouples the complex elements that define population structure from estimation of population parameters of interest and reveals, rather than assumes, fine details of population structure. Encompassing a broad range of possible population structures would enable comparable inferences across biological systems, even in the face of range expansion or contraction, fragmentation, or changes in density. Currently, the best candidate is the spatial Λ‐Fleming‐Viot (SLFV) model, a spatially explicit individually based coalescent model that allows independent inference of two of the most important elements of population structure: local population density and local dispersal. We support increased use of the SLFV model for genetic monitoring by highlighting its benefits over traditional approaches. We also discuss necessary future directions for model development to support large genomic datasets informing real‐world management and conservation issues.
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".