MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037441421 · doi:10.7554/elife.54967

A community-maintained standard library of population genetic models

2020· article· en· W3037441421 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey R. Adrion, C. B. Cole, Noah Dukler, Jared Galloway, Ariella Gladstein, Graham Gower, Christopher C. Kyriazis, Aaron P. Ragsdale, Georgia Tsambos, Franz Baumdicker, Jedidiah Carlson, Reed A. Cartwright, Arun Durvasula, Ilan Gronau, Bernard Kim, Patrick McKenzie, Philipp W. Messer, Ekaterina Noskova, Diego Ortega‐Del Vecchyo, Fernando Racimo, Travis J. Struck, Simon Gravel, Ryan N. Gutenkunst, Kirk E. Lohmueller, Peter L. Ralph, Daniel R. Schrider, Adam Siepel, Jerome Kelleher, Andrew D. Kern

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesDirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoSimons Center for Quantitative Biology, Cold Spring Harbor LaboratoryNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of California Institute for Mexico and the United StatesConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaRobertson FoundationNational Human Genome Research InstituteVillum FondenNational Evolutionary Synthesis Center
KeywordsPython (programming language)Computer scienceData sciencePopulationResource (disambiguation)InferenceArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The explosion in population genomic data demands ever more complex modes of analysis, and increasingly, these analyses depend on sophisticated simulations. Recent advances in population genetic simulation have made it possible to simulate large and complex models, but specifying such models for a particular simulation engine remains a difficult and error-prone task. Computational genetics researchers currently re-implement simulation models independently, leading to inconsistency and duplication of effort. This situation presents a major barrier to empirical researchers seeking to use simulations for power analyses of upcoming studies or sanity checks on existing genomic data. Population genetics, as a field, also lacks standard benchmarks by which new tools for inference might be measured. Here, we describe a new resource, stdpopsim, that attempts to rectify this situation. Stdpopsim is a community-driven open source project, which provides easy access to a growing catalog of published simulation models from a range of organisms and supports multiple simulation engine backends. This resource is available as a well-documented python library with a simple command-line interface. We share some examples demonstrating how stdpopsim can be used to systematically compare demographic inference methods, and we encourage a broader community of developers to contribute to this growing resource.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaOpen science
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Software
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0830.079

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Open science

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSimulation or modeling · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods · Software

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

Citations256
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsCategoryOpen scienceFrench-language works237,207