Data from: Evolutionary inferences from the analysis of exchangeability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary inferences are usually based on statistical models that compare mean genotypes and phenotypes (or their frequencies) among populations. An alternative is to use the actual distribution of genotypes and phenotypes to infer the “exchangeability” of individuals among populations. We illustrate this approach by using discriminant functions on principal components to classify individuals among paired lake and stream populations of threespine stickleback in each of six independent watersheds. Classification based on neutral and non-neutral microsatellite markers was highest to the population of origin and next-highest to populations in the same watershed. These patterns are consistent with the influence of historical contingency (separate colonization of each watershed) and subsequent gene flow (within but not between watersheds). In comparison to this low genetic exchangeability, ecological (diet) and morphological (trophic and armor traits) exchangeability was relatively high – particularly among populations from similar habitats. These patterns reflect the role of natural selection in driving parallel changes adaptive changes when independent populations colonize similar habitats. Importantly, however, substantial non-parallelism was also evident. Our results show that analyses based on exchangeability can confirm inferences based on statistical analyses of means or frequencies, while also refining insights into the drivers of – and constraints on – evolutionary diversification.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.033 |
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".