Relatedness coefficients and their applications for triplets and quartets of genetic markers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relatedness coefficients which seek the identity-by-descent of genetic markers are described. The markers are in groups of two, three or four, and if four, can consist of two pairs. It is essential to use cumulants (not moments) for four-marker-gene probabilities, as the covariance of homozygosity, used in four-marker applications, can only be described with cumulants. A covariance of homozygosity between pairs of markers arises when populations follow a mixture distribution. Also, the probability of four markers all identical-by-descent equals the normalized fourth cumulant. In this article, a "genetic marker" generally represents either a gene locus or an allele at a locus. Applications of three marker coefficients mainly involve conditional regression, and applications of four marker coefficients can involve identity disequilibrium. Estimation of relatedness using genetic marker data is discussed. However, three- and four-marker estimators suffer from statistical and numerical problems, including higher statistical variance, complexity of estimation formula, and singularity at some intermediate allele frequencies.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it