Architectural specialization of the intrinsic thoracic limb musculature of the American badger (<i>Taxidea taxus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of the relationships between muscle structure and digging function in fossorial species is limited. Badgers and other fossorial specialists are expected to have massive forelimb muscles with long fascicles capable of substantial shortening for high power and applying high out-force to the substrate. To explore this hypothesis, we quantified muscle architecture in the thoracic limb of the American badger (Taxidea taxus) and estimated the force, power, and joint torque of its intrinsic musculature in relation to the use of scratch-digging behavior. Architectural properties measured were muscle mass, belly length, fascicle length, pennation angle, and physiological cross-sectional area. Badgers possess hypertrophied shoulder flexors/humeral retractors, elbow extensors, and digital flexors. The triceps brachii is particularly massive and has long fascicles with little pennation, muscle architecture consistent with substantial shortening capability, and high power. A unique feature of badgers is that, in addition to elbow joint extension, two biarticular heads (long and medial) of the triceps are capable of applying high torques to the shoulder joint to facilitate retraction of the forelimb throughout the power stroke. The massive and complex digital flexors show relatively greater pennation and shorter fascicle lengths than the triceps brachii, as well as compartmentalization of muscle heads to accentuate both force production and range of shortening during flexion of the carpus and digits. Muscles of most functional groups exhibit some degree of specialization for high force production and are important for stabilizing the shoulder, elbow, and carpal joints against high limb forces generated during powerful digging motions. Overall, our findings support the hypothesis and indicate that forelimb muscle architecture is consistent with specializations for scratch-digging. Quantified muscle properties in the American badger serve as a comparator to evaluate the range of diversity in muscle structure and contractile function that exists in mammals specialized for fossorial habits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".