Linking the spatial and genomic structure of adaptive potential for conservation management: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We unified the recent literature with the goal to contribute to the discussion on how genetic diversity might best be conserved. We argue that this decision will be guided by how genomic variation is distributed among manageable populations (i.e., its spatial structure), the degree to which adaptive potential is best predicted by variation across the entire genome or the subset of that variation that is identified as putatively adaptive (i.e., its genomic structure), and whether we are managing species as single entities or as collections of diversifying lineages. The distribution of genetic variation and our ultimate goal will have practical implications for on-the-ground management. If adaptive variation is largely polygenic or responsive to change, its spatial structure might be broadly governed by the forces determining genome-wide variation (linked selection, drift, and gene flow), making measurement and prioritization straightforward. If we are managing species as single entities, then population-level prioritization schemes are possible so as to maximize future pooled genetic variation. We outline one such scheme based on the popular Shapley value from cooperative game theory that considers the relative genetic contribution of a population to an unknown future collection of populations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".