Data from: The relative power of genome scans to detect local adaptation depends on sampling design and statistical method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although genome scans have become a popular approach towards understanding the genetic basis of local adaptation, the field still does not have a firm grasp on how sampling design and demographic history affect the performance of genome scans on complex landscapes. To explore these issues, we compared 20 different sampling designs in equilibrium (i.e. island model and isolation by distance) and nonequilibrium (i.e. range expansion from one or two refugia) demographic histories in spatially heterogeneous environments. We simulated spatially complex landscapes, which allowed us to exploit local maxima and minima in the environment in ‘pair’ and ‘transect’ sampling strategies. We compared FST outlier and genetic–environment association (GEA) methods for each of two approaches that control for population structure: with a covariance matrix or with latent factors. We show that while the relative power of two methods in the same category (FST or GEA) depended largely on the number of individuals sampled, overall GEA tests had higher power in the island model and FST had higher power under isolation by distance. In the refugia models, however, these methods varied in their power to detect local adaptation at weakly selected loci. At weakly selected loci, paired sampling designs had equal or higher power than transect or random designs to detect local adaptation. Our results can inform sampling designs for studies of local adaptation and have important implications for the interpretation of genome scans based on landscape data.
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 | 0.039 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".