Intermuscle differences in activation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate differences within individual subjects in the ability to activate the quadriceps, plantar flexors (PF), dorsiflexors (DF), and elbow flexors (EF) during isometric contractions. Twelve male subjects performed submaximal and maximal voluntary isometric contractions, and maximal tetanic contractions were also induced by electrical stimulation. The interpolated twitch technique was used to gauge the extent of muscle inactivation or inability to produce maximum force. Measurements included torque output, absolute and relative rate of force development (RFD), and percentage of muscle inactivation. The quadriceps exceeded all other muscle groups in voluntary and tetanic torque output, voluntary absolute RFD, and absolute and relative tetanic RFD. The quadriceps also exceeded the PF and DF in voluntary relative RFD and had greater muscle inactivation (15.5%) than the EF (5.0%), PF (5.0%), and DF (1.3%). Although the higher RFD may suggest a higher percentage of type II fibers in the quadriceps, their higher threshold of recruitment leads to greater difficulty in fully activating the quadriceps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".