MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066695812 · doi:10.1242/jeb.01095

Force enhancement in single skeletal muscle fibres on the ascending limb of the force–length relationship

2004· article· en· W2066695812 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Peterson, Dilson E. Rassier, Walter Herzog

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseAnatomyMuscle contractionContraction (grammar)Materials scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been assumed that force enhancement in single fibres of skeletal muscles only occurs on the descending, and not the ascending or plateau region, of the force-length relationship. This assumption has been based, however, on theoretical considerations or isolated experiments, in which neither stretch conditions nor fibre lengths were optimized for force enhancement. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the residual, steady-state force enhancement following active stretch in single muscle fibres of frog on the ascending limb of the force-length relationship. Twenty-nine stretch experiments on ten single fibres from the lumbrical muscle of the frog Rana pipiens were carried out on the ascending limb of the force-length relationship. Force enhancement was observed in 28 out of the 29 tests. Moreover, the force produced for stretch experiments finishing at optimal fibre length always exceeded the force obtained for an isometric contraction at optimal length. We conclude from these results that steady-state force enhancement occurs systematically on the ascending limb of the force-length relationship, and that the steady-state force in the enhanced state can easily exceed the maximal isometric force of the fibre.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations93
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207