Spatial familial networks to infer demographic structure of wild populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In social species, reproductive success and rates of dispersal vary among individuals resulting in spatially structured populations. Network analyses of familial relationships may provide insights on how these parameters influence population‐level demographic patterns. These methods, however, have rarely been applied to genetically derived pedigree data from wild populations. Here, we use parent–offspring relationships to construct familial networks from polygamous boreal woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Saskatchewan, Canada, to inform recovery efforts. We collected samples from 933 individuals at 15 variable microsatellite loci along with caribou‐specific primers for sex identification. Using network measures, we assess the contribution of individual caribou to the population with several centrality measures and then determine which measures are best suited to inform on the population demographic structure. We investigate the centrality of individuals from eighteen different local areas, along with the entire population. We found substantial differences in centrality of individuals in different local areas, that in turn contributed differently to the full network, highlighting the importance of analyzing networks at different scales. The full network revealed that boreal caribou in Saskatchewan form a complex, interconnected familial network, as the removal of edges with high betweenness did not result in distinct subgroups. Alpha, betweenness, and eccentricity centrality were the most informative measures to characterize the population demographic structure and for spatially identifying areas of highest fitness levels and family cohesion across the range. We found varied levels of dispersal, fitness, and cohesion in family groups. Synthesis and applications: Our results demonstrate the value of different network measures in assessing genetically derived familial networks. The spatial application of the familial networks identified individuals presenting different fitness levels, short‐ and long‐distance dispersing ability across the range in support of population monitoring and recovery efforts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".