Why we need an international agreement on marine plastic pollution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plastic pollution is strewn across beaches and in oceans, bays, and estuaries. Tiny particles of plastic debris (often called microplastics) are so pervasive in aquatic ecosystems that we find them in seafood (1) and table salt (2). Marine organisms ingest or are entangled by plastic, sometimes with fatal consequences. Research suggests plastic pollution may impact biodiversity, ecosystem services, food security, and human health. In short, plastic pollution is a global threat. Plastics are accumulating across the globe at an astounding pace, even in remote places like the one pictured here—the uninhabited Henderson Island in the South Pacific. The time is ripe for an international agreement with measurable reduction targets to lessen the plastic pollution in the world’s oceans. Reprinted with permission from ref. 19. Despite the ubiquity, persistence, and cross-boundary nature of plastic pollution, stemming it is not an insurmountable task. Motivation for addressing the issue is building at the international level. The time is ripe for the initiation of an international agreement with measurable reduction targets to lessen the plastic pollution in the world’s oceans. An estimated 4.4–12.7 million metric tons of plastic are added to the oceans annually (3). Like many other contaminants (such as greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances), plastic is not constrained by national boundaries, because it migrates via water and air currents and settles in benthic sediments. More than 50% of the ocean’s area sits beyond national jurisdiction, including the infamous “garbage patches” in oceanic gyres where plastic accumulates. Plastic can affect organisms at every level of biological organization—altering gene expression, cells and tissues, causing death, and altering population size and community structure (4). Microplastics can impair reproduction and development (5) and alter how species function, disperse, and assemble (4, 6). These impacts, combined with evidence for accelerating plastic production and emissions into … [↵][1]2To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: chelsea.rochman{at}utoronto.ca. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1
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 | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".