Correction: Spatial Genetic Structure Patterns of Phenotype-Limited and Boundary-Limited Expanding Populations: A Simulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Range expansions may create a unique spatial genetic pattern characterized by alternate genetically homogeneous domains and allele frequency clines.Previous attempts to model range expansions have mainly focused on the loss of genetic diversity during expansions.Using individual-based models, we examined spatial genetic patterns under two expansion scenarios, boundary-limited range expansions (BLRE) and phenotype-limited range expansions (PhLRE).Our simulation revealed that the genetic diversity within populations lost quickly during the range expansion, while the genetic difference accumulated between populations.Consequently, accompanying the expansions, the overall diversity featured a slow decrease.Specifically, during BLREs, high speed of boundary motion facilitated the maintenance of total genetic diversity and sharpened genetic clines.Very slight constraints on boundary motion of BLREs drastically narrowed the homogeneous domains and increased the allele frequency fluctuations from those levels exhibited by PhLREs.Even stronger constraints, however, surprisingly brought the width of homogeneous domains and the allele frequency fluctuations back to the normal levels of PhLREs.Furthermore, high migration rates maintained a higher total genetic diversity than low ones did during PhLREs.Whereas, the total genetic diversities during BLREs showed a contrary pattern: higher when migration was low than those when migration was high.Besides, the increase of migration rates helped maintain a greater number of homogeneous domains during PhLREs, but their effects on the number of homogeneous domains during BLREs were not monotonous.Previous studies have showed that the homogenous domains can merge to form a few broad domains as the expansion went on, leading to fewer homogeneous domains.Our simulations, meanwhile, revealed that the range expansions could also rebuild homogeneous domains from the clines during the range expansion.It is possible that that the number of homogeneous domains was determined by the interaction of merging and newly emerging homogeneous domains.
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 | 0.007 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.311 | 0.065 |
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".