Comparative anatomy and muscle architecture of selected hind limb muscles in the Quarter Horse and Arab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Quarter Horse (bred for acceleration) and the Arab (bred for endurance) are situated at either end of the equine athletic spectrum. Studies into the form and function of the leg muscles in human sprint and endurance runners have demonstrated that differences exist in their muscle architecture. It is not known whether similar differences exist in the horse. Six Quarter Horse and six Arab fresh hind limb cadavers were dissected to gain information on the muscle mass and architecture of the following muscles: gluteus medius; biceps femoris; semitendinosus; vastus lateralis; gastrocnemius; tibialis cranialis and extensor digitorum longus. Specifically, muscle mass, fascicle length and pennation angle were quantified and physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) and maximum isometric force were estimated. The hind limb muscles of the Quarter Horse were of a significantly greater mass, but had similar fascicle lengths and pennation angles when compared with those of the Arab; this resulted in the Quarter Horse hind limb muscles having greater PCSAs and hence greater isometric force potential. This study suggests that Quarter Horses as a breed inherently possess large strong hind limb muscles, with the potential to accelerate their body mass more rapidly than those of the Arab.
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) | 0.002 | 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".