MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6901710819 · doi:10.60692/cj9es-abj44

North Asian population relationships in a global context

2022· article· en· W6901710819 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicForensic and Genetic Research
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeContext (archaeology)PopulationOptimal distinctiveness theoryEthnic groupCentral asiaVariation (astronomy)Genetic variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population genetic studies of North Asian ethnic groups have focused on genetic variation of sex chromosomes and mitochondria. Studies of the extensive variation available from autosomal variation have appeared infrequently. We focus on relationships among population samples using new North Asia microhaplotype data. We combined genotypes from our laboratory on 58 microhaplotypes, distributed across 18 autosomes, on 3945 individuals from 75 populations with corresponding data extracted for 26 populations from the Thousand Genomes consortium and for 22 populations from the GenomeAsia 100 K project. A total of 7107 individuals in 122 total populations are analyzed using STRUCTURE, Principal Component Analysis, and phylogenetic tree analyses. North Asia populations sampled in Mongolia include: Buryats, Mongolians, Altai Kazakhs, and Tsaatans. Available Siberians include samples of Yakut, Khanty, and Komi Zyriane. Analyses of all 122 populations confirm many known relationships and show that most populations from North Asia form a cluster distinct from all other groups. Refinement of analyses on smaller subsets of populations reinforces the distinctiveness of North Asia and shows that the North Asia cluster identifies a region that is ancestral to Native Americans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicForensic and Genetic ResearchFrench-language works237,207