Morphometry of<i>Macaca mulatta</i>forelimb. II. Fiber‐type composition in shoulder and elbow muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the fiber-type proportions of 22 muscles spanning the shoulder and/or elbow joints of three Macaca mulatta. Fibers were classified as one of three types: fast-glycolytic (FG), fast-oxidative-glycolytic (FOG), or slow-oxidative (SO). In most muscles, the FG fibers predominated, but proportions ranged from 25-67% in different muscles. SO fibers were less abundant except in a few deep, small muscles where they comprised as much as 56% of the fibers. Cross-sectional area (CSA) of the three fiber types was measured in six different muscles. FG fibers tended to be the largest, whereas SO fibers were the smallest. While fiber-type size was not always consistent between muscles, the relative size of FG fibers was generally larger than FOG and SO fibers within the same muscle. When fiber CSA was taken into consideration, FG fibers were found to comprise over 50% of the muscle's CSA in almost all muscles.
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".