Are muscle fiber types different between normal and dark-cutting beef?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle fiber (MF) characteristics of longissimus thoracis (LT) muscles from heifer (n = 11) and steer (n = 12) carcasses graded Canada AA (AA, normal, n = 4 per sex) or dark-cutting (Canada B4) were examined and related to beef quality. Atypical (AB4, pH < 5.9, n = 4 per sex) and typical (TB4, pH > 5.9, n = 3 and 4 for heifers and steers, respectively) dark-cutting carcasses were represented. Muscle fiber type proportions did not differ between AA, AB4, and TB4 muscles, although type I and IIB muscle fiber diameters were greater in TB4 than in AA LT. That AB4 muscle fiber proportions were not different from AA and TB4 muscles suggests that the increased MF diameter of TB4 muscle was due to water retained by muscle proteins at high ultimate pH, as evidenced by decreased cooking loss. Dark-cutting was therefore unrelated to muscle fiber proportions, and increased type I and IIB diameters in dark cutting LT were likely driven by elevated intramuscular ultimate pH.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".