Comparison of interpolation and central activation ratios as measures of muscle inactivation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it