Data from: Evaluating methods for estimating local effective population size with and without migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractEffective population size is a fundamental parameter in population genetics, evolutionary biology and conservation biology, yet its estimation can be fraught with difficulties. Several methods to estimate Ne from genetic data have been developed which take advantage of various approaches for inferring Ne. The ability of these methods to accurately estimate Ne, however, has not been comprehensively examined. In this study, we employ seven of the most cited methods for estimating Ne from genetic data (Colony2, CoNe, Estim, MLNe, ONeSAMP, TMVP, and NeEstimator including LDNe) across simulated datasets with populations experiencing migration or no migration. The simulated population demographies are an isolated population with no immigration, an island model metapopulation with a sink population receiving immigrants, and an isolation by distance stepping stone model of populations. We find considerable variance in performance of these methods, both within and across demographic scenarios, with some methods performing very poorly. The most accurate estimates of Ne can be obtained by using LDNe, MLNe, or TMVP; however each of these approaches is outperformed by another in a differing demographic scenario. Knowledge of the approximate demography of population as well as the availability of temporal data largely improves Ne estimates.
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 | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".