Performing Parentage Analysis for Polysomic Inheritances Based on Allelic Phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polyploidy poses several problems for parentage analysis. We present a new polysomic inheritance model for parentage analysis based on genotypes or allelic phenotypes to solve these problems. The effects of five factors are simultaneously accommodated in this model: (i) double-reduction, (ii) null alleles, (iii) negative amplification, (iv) genotyping errors and (v) self-fertilization. To solve genotyping ambiguity (unknown allele dosage), we developed a new method to establish the likelihood formulas for allelic phenotype data and to simultaneously include the effects of our five chosen factors. We then evaluated and compared the performance of our new method with three established methods by using both simulated data and empirical data from the cultivated blueberry ( Vaccinium corymbosum ). We also developed and compared the performance of two additional estimators to estimate the geno-typing error rate and the sample rate. We make our new methods freely available in the software package polygene , at http://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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".