Fibre bundle element method of determining physiological cross-sectional area from three-dimensional computer muscle models created from digitised fibre bundle data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) is used to compare force-producing capabilities of muscles. A limitation of PCSA is that it cannot be measured directly from a specimen, as there is usually no area within the muscle traversed by all fibres. Traditionally, a formula requiring averaged architectural parameters has been used. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of a fibre bundle element (FBE) method to calculate PCSA from digitised fibre bundle data of five architecturally distinct muscles and compare the FBE and PCSA formula. An FBE method was developed that used a serially arranged set of cylinders as the volumetric representation of each fibre bundle, and PCSA was computed as the summation of the cross-sectional area of each FBE. Four of five muscles had significantly different PCSA between FBE and formula methods. The FBE method provides an approach that considers architectural variances while minimising the need for averaged architectural parameters.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it