Reduction of wing area affects estimated stress in the primary flight muscles of chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In flying birds, the pectoralis (PECT) and supracoracoideus (SUPRA) generate most of the power required for flight, while the wing feathers create the aerodynamic forces. However, in domestic laying hens, little is known about the architectural properties of these muscles and the forces the wings produce. As housing space increases for commercial laying hens, understanding these properties is important for assuring safe locomotion. We tested the effects of wing area loss on mass, physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA), and estimated muscle stress (EMS) of the PECT and SUPRA in white-feathered laying hens. Treatments included Unclipped ( N = 18), Half-Clipped with primaries removed ( N = 18) and Fully-Clipped with the primaries and secondaries removed ( N = 18). The mass and PCSA of the PECT and SUPRA did not vary significantly with treatment. Thus, laying hen muscle anatomy may be relatively resistant to changes in external wing morphology. We observed significant differences in EMS among treatments, as Unclipped birds exhibited the greatest EMS. This suggests that intact wings provide the greatest stimulus of external force for the primary flight muscles.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".