Comparison of interpolation and central activation ratios as measures of muscle inactivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate different methods of estimating muscle inactivation, derived from single and multiple voluntary contractions. Ten subjects performed maximal and submaximal leg extensor contractions to determine an interpolation (IT) or central activation ratio (CAR). A superimposed evoked force was compared with the force output of either a voluntary (CAR) or resting evoked contraction (IT ratio), or the ratios were inserted into regression equations (linear, polynomial, exponential). Linear-regression estimates of CAR using doublets and tetanus provided physiologically inaccurate values. Whereas IT ratios using doublets (IT-doublet) and tetanus (IT-tetanus) had a significant difference in only one interaction, IT-tetanus and CAR using a tetanus (CAR-tetanus) estimates provided the most extensive correlation within and between measures. Thus, tetanic stimulation superimposed upon single maximal or multiple contractions seems to provide the most valid measure of muscle inactivation when using the interpolated-twitch technique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".