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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".