The presence of microplastics in juvenile Chinook salmon and their nearshore environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microplastics are an emerging problem in the world’s oceans. These small plastic particles (size) can be produced from primary or secondary sources and are becoming globally ubiquitous in the marine environment through inputs such as wastewater discharge, coastal litter and industrial materials. Microplastic ingestion has been documented in a variety of marine species ranging from zooplankton to fish to marine mammals. Potential risks from microplastic consumption occur through internal physical damage (e.g., abrasion or blockage) and/or chemical damage. Microplastics can host concentrations of persistent organic pollutants several orders of magnitude higher than ambient marine waters. Ingestion of microplastics by lower trophic level organisms can provide an entry point for these chemicals and plastics to amplify through the food chain. This project focuses on ingestion of microplastics by juvenile Chinook salmon in nearshore areas where they reside upon leaving their natal stream. Specific project objectives are to determine the incidence and quantity of microplastics in juvenile Chinook salmon and their associated nearshore environments (water and sediment) in order to determine microplastics “hotspots” and potential sources. We completed a series of beach seines, plankton tows and sediment cores along the east coast of Vancouver Island in nearshore areas of particular importance to juvenile salmon. Because microplastic work is still in its infancy, method testing is currently ongoing to develop an accurate, cost effective and efficient protocol to isolate microplastics from biological tissue, water and sediment. Once completed, this study will allow us to assess the distribution of microplastics in important nursery habitats and aid further research into microplastics as a potential threat to juvenile Pacific salmon.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".