What can optimized cost distances based on genetic distances offer? A simulation study on the use and misuse of <scp>ResistanceGA</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modelling population connectivity is central to biodiversity conservation and often relies on resistance surfaces reflecting multi-generational gene flow. ResistanceGA (RGA) is a common optimization framework for parameterizing these surfaces by maximizing the fit between genetic distances and cost distances using maximum likelihood population effect models. As the reliability of this framework has rarely been studied, we investigated the conditions maximizing its accuracy for both prediction and interpretation of landscape features' permeability. We ran demo-genetic simulations in contrasted landscapes for species with distinct dispersal capacities and specialization levels, using corresponding reference cost scenarios. We then optimized resistance surfaces from the simulated genetic distances using RGA. First, we evaluated whether RGA identified the drivers of the genetic patterns, that is, distinguished Isolation-by-Resistance (IBR) patterns from either Isolation-by-Distance or patterns unrelated to ecological distances. We then assessed RGA predictive performance using a cross-validation method, and its ability to recover the reference cost scenarios shaping genetic structure in simulations. IBR patterns were well detected and genetic distances were predicted with great accuracy. This performance depended on the strength of the genetic structuring, sampling design and landscape structure. Matching the scale of the genetic pattern by focusing on population pairs connected through gene flow and limiting overfitting through cross-validation further enhanced inference reliability. Yet, the optimized cost values often departed from the reference values, making their interpretation and extrapolation potentially dubious. While demonstrating the value of RGA for predictive modelling, we call for caution and provide additional guidance for its optimal use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".