MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992675266 · doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2014.12.020

Plastic debris in the Laurentian Great Lakes: A review

2015· review· en· W1992675266 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Alexander G.J. Driedger, Hans H. Dürr, Kristen Mitchell, Philippe Van Cappellen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Great Lakes Research · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationUniversity of WaterlooCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsPlastic pollutionMarine debrisDebrisEnvironmental scienceMicroplasticsPollutionShoreLitterBenthic zoneCommercial fishingFishingEnvironmental protectionOceanographyFisheryEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollution by plastic debris is an increasing environmental concern in the Laurentian Great Lakes where it affects open-water, shoreline, and benthic environments. Open-water surveys reveal that, in certain areas of the Great Lakes, surface water densities of plastics are as high as those reported for areas of litter accumulation within oceanic gyres. Data from volunteer beach cleanups show that typically more than 80% of anthropogenic litter along the shorelines of the Great Lakes is comprised of plastics. The distribution of plastics in bottom sediments of the Great Lakes is essentially unknown. Sources of plastic debris to the Great Lakes include microplastic beads from consumer products, pellets from the plastic manufacturing industry, and waste from beach-goers, shipping, and fishing activities. Many plastics degrade slowly in the environment and may have long-term adverse ecological and economic impacts, including the dispersal of persistent organic pollutants. Plans to combat and curtail plastic debris pollution in the Great Lakes will come at a significant economic cost, likely in excess of $400 million annually. Here, we review the current state of knowledge on plastic pollution in the Great Lakes, identify knowledge gaps, and suggest future research directions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations423
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Great Lakes ResearchSame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207