When are populations not connected like a circuit? Identifying biases in gene flow from coalescent times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Connectivity and movement patterns of populations are influenced by past and present environmental and biotic factors, which are reflected in genetic relatedness among populations. Methods that estimate the "commute time" between populations based on electrical resistance (i.e., isolation-by-resistance [IBR]) have been widely applied to either infer movement patterns directly from environmental factors or detect possible barriers to gene flow given empirical genetic relatedness. Yet, the commute time is only equivalent to the coalescence time between populations under symmetric migration with isotropic landscapes. Asymmetric gene flow is relatively common when populations are expanding, retreating, or with source-sink dynamics. In a From the Cover paper in this issue of Molecular Ecology Resources, Lundgren and Ralph (Molecular Ecology Resources, 19, 2019) describe a Bayesian method to infer bidirectional gene flow rates and population sizes without the assumption of symmetry. The method shows great accuracy in connectivity estimations under symmetric, as well as asymmetric gene flow scenarios where resistance methods fail. However, computational complexity limits the method to a few populations, preventing its application to finescale environmental maps. Also, as a discrete-deme static model, the inferred differences in gene flow rates are sensitive to population discretization and cannot be directly used to differentiate among processes (e.g., past expansion vs. current barrier). Here, we discuss scenarios where the new method can best be utilized and provide potential directions to identify the underlying processes causing deviations in gene flow patterns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".