Data from: Sampling schemes and drift can bias admixture proportions inferred by STRUCTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interbreeding of individuals coming from genetically differentiated but incompletely isolated populations can lead to the formation of admixed populations, having important implications in ecology and evolution. In this simulation study, we evaluate how individual admixture proportions estimated by the software structure are quantitatively affected by different factors. Using various scenarios of admixture between two diverging populations, we found that unbalanced sampling from parental populations may seriously bias the inferred admixture proportions; moreover, proportionally large samples from the admixed population can also decrease the accuracy and precision of the inferences. As expected, weak differentiation between parental populations and drift after the admixture event strongly increase the biases caused by uneven sampling. We also show that admixture proportions are generally more biased when parental populations unequally contributed to the admixed population. Finally, with few exceptions, using a large number of markers reduces those biases, but using alternative priors for individual ancestry or the uncorrelated allele model only marginally affect the inference of admixture in most situations. We conclude that unbalanced sampling may cause important biases in the admixture proportions estimated by structure, especially when a small number of markers are used, and those biases can be worsened by the effect of drift and unequal genetic contribution of parental populations. Empirical studies should thus be careful with their sampling design and consider historical characteristics when using this software to estimate the ancestry of individuals from admixed 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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.020 |
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".