A generalized framework for AMOVA with multiple hierarchies and ploidies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) is a widely used statistical method in population genetics and molecular ecology. The classic framework of AMOVA only supports haploid and diploid data, in which the number of hierarchies ranges from two to four. In practice, natural populations can be classified into more hierarchies, and polyploidy is frequently observed in extant species. The ploidy level may even vary within the same species, and/or within the same individual. We generalized the framework of AMOVA such that it can be used for any number of hierarchies and any level of ploidy. Based on this framework, we present four methods to account for data that are multilocus genotypic and allelic phenotypic (with unknown allele dosage). We use simulated datasets and an empirical dataset to evaluate the performance of our framework. We make freely available our methods in a new software package, polygene, which is freely available at https://github.com/huangkang1987/polygene.
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 | 0.030 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".