Measuring genetic diversity across populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diversity plays an important role in various domains, including conservation, whether it describes diversity within a population or diversity over a set of species. While various strategies for measuring among-species diversity have emerged (e.g. Phylogenetic Diversity (PD), Split System Diversity (SSD) and entropy-based methods), extensions to populations are rare. An understudied problem is how to assess the diversity of a collection of populations where each has its own internal diversity. Relying solely on measures that treat each population as a monomorphic lineage (like a species) can be misleading. To address this problem, we present four population-level diversity assessment approaches: Pooling, Averaging, Pairwise Differencing, and Fixing. These approaches can be used to extend any diversity measure that is primarily defined for a group of individuals to a collection of populations. We then apply the approaches to two measures of diversity that have been used in conservation-Heterozygosity (Het) and Split System Diversity (SSD)-across a dataset comprising SNP data for 50 anadromous Atlantic salmon populations. We investigate agreement and disagreement between these measures of diversity when used to identify optimal sets of populations for conservation, on both the observed data, and randomized and simulated datasets. The similarity and differences of the maximum-diversity sets as well as the pairwise correlations among our proposed measures emphasize the need to clearly define what aspects of biodiversity we aim to both measure and optimize, to ensure meaningful and effective conservation decisions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".