MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888563676 · doi:10.1002/elps.201800171

Implementing a biogeographic ancestry inference service for forensic casework

2018· article· en· W2888563676 on OpenAlexaff
Soulbee Jin, Maretta Chase, Margaret J. Henry, G. G. Alderson, James M. Morrow, Sobia Malik, David Ballard, Joel McGrory, Neil Fernandopulle, Jonathan Millman, Jack Laird

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrophoresis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicForensic and Genetic Research
Canadian institutionsAdvantage Forensics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic scienceGenetic genealogyAncestry-informative markerInferenceMassive parallel sequencingForensic anthropologyDeclarationEvolutionary biologyGeographyBiologyArchaeologyDemographyDNA sequencingComputer scienceGeneticsGenotypeAllele frequencyPopulationArtificial intelligenceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Centre of Forensic Sciences has validated the Precision ID Ancestry Panel on the Ion S5™ Massively Parallel Sequencing instrument for use in forensic casework. The focus of this paper is the development of reporting guidelines for implementation of the biogeographic ancestry inference service based on the Admixture Prediction results produced using the Torrent Suite™ Software (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The Admixture Prediction algorithm estimates the genetic ancestry of a sample using seven root populations (Europe, East Asia, Oceania, America, Africa, South Asia, and Southwest Asia). For individuals that declared a single ancestry, there was a high correlation between the declared ancestry and the ancestry predicted by the algorithm. However, some individuals with declared ancestries of Southern Europe, Southwest Asia, South Asia and Horn of Africa had Admixture Predictions that were composed of two or more root populations at 20% or greater. For individuals with known admixed ancestry, the major component of their declaration was included in their results in all but one case. Based on these results, reporting guidelines were developed and subsequently evaluated using the Admixture Predictions of additional samples. This paper discusses the development and evaluation of these reporting guidelines, along with an implementation plan for forensic casework.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectrophoresisSame topicForensic and Genetic ResearchFrench-language works237,207