MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W191416604 · doi:10.1152/jn.2001.86.4.1717

Neck Muscles in the Rhesus Monkey. I. Muscle Morphometry and Histochemistry

2001· article· en· W191416604 on OpenAlexaff
F.J.R. Richmond, Brian D. Corneil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnatomyFascicleMuscle fibreBiologyFiber typeFibre typeNeck musclesSkeletal muscle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Morphometric methods were used to describe the musculotendinous lengths, fascicle lengths, pennation angles, and cross-sectional areas of neck muscles in adult Macaca mulatta monkeys. Additionally, muscles were frozen, sectioned, and stained for ATPase activity to determine fiber-type composition. Individual rhesus muscles were found to vary widely in their degree of similarity to feline and human muscles studied previously. Suboccipital muscles and muscles supplied by the spinal accessory nerve were most similar to human homologs, whereas most other muscles exhibited architectural specializations. Many neck muscles were architecturally complex, with multiple attachments and internal aponeuroses or tendinous inscriptions that affected the determination of their cross-sectional areas. All muscles were composed of a mixture of type I, IIa, and IIb fiber types the relative proportions of which varied. Typically, head-turning muscles had lower proportions of type II (fast) fibers than homologous feline muscles, whereas extensor muscles contained higher proportions of type II fibers. The physical and histochemical specializations described here are known to have a direct bearing on functional properties, such as force-developing capacity and fatigue-resistance. These specializations must be recognized if muscles are to be modeled accurately or studied electrophysiologically.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations64
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207