Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,296

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Testing Differentiation in Diploid Populations

Open access
Goudet, Jérôme, Raymond, Michel, de Meeüs, Thierry, Rousset, François·1996·Genetics

Abstract

We examine the power of different exact tests of differentiation for diploid populations. Since there is not necessarily random mating within populations, the appropriate hypothesis to construct exact tests is that of independent sampling of genotypes. There are two categories of tests, FST-estimator tests and goodness of fit tests. In this latter category, we distinguish “allelic statistics”, which account for the nature of alleles within genotypes, from “genotypic statistics” that do not. We show that the power of FST-estimator tests and of allelic goodness of fit tests are similar when sampling is balanced, and higher than the power of genotypic goodness of fit tests. When sampling is unbalanced, the most powerful tests are shown to belong to the allelic goodness of fit group.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/genetics/144.4.1933

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Goudet, J., Raymond, M., de Meeüs, T., & Rousset, F.
Venue
Genetics
Published
1996-12-01
Volume
144
Issue
4
Pages
1933-1940
ISSN
  • 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2631
OpenAlex
W2112175944
Cited by
1,296
References
0
FWCI
5.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.