A roadmap to robust discriminant analysis of principal components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of population structure is a common goal for a variety of applications, including conservation, wildlife management, and medical genetics. The outcome of these analyses can have far reaching implications; therefore, it is important to ensure an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies used. Increasing in popularity, the discriminant analysis of principal components (DAPC) method incorporates combinations of genetic variables (alleles) into a model that differentiates individuals into genetic clusters. However, users may not have a full understanding of how to best parameterize the model. In this issue of Thia (Molecular Ecology Resources, 2022) looks under the hood of the DAPC. Using simulated data, he demonstrates the importance of careful parameter selection in developing a DAPC model, what the implications are for over-fitting the model, and finally, how best to evaluate the results of DAPC models. This work highlights the issues that can arise when over-parameterizing the DAPC model when gene flow is high among clusters and provides important guidelines to ensure researchers are making conclusions that are biologically relevant.
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 | 0.028 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
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".