MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899730238 · doi:10.1139/er-2018-0079

Assessing plastic debris in aquatic food webs: what we know and don’t know about uptake and trophic transfer

2018· article· en· W2899730238 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jennifer F. Provencher, Justine Ammendolia, Chelsea M. Rochman, Mark L. Mallory

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandAcadia UniversityUniversity of TorontoEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersLiber Ero FoundationAssociation of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies
KeywordsTrophic levelBiotaPlastic pollutionEcologyEcosystemMicroplasticsFood chainAquatic ecosystemBiologyFreshwater ecosystemEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plastic pollution is now recognized as a global environmental issue that can affect the health of biota and ecosystems. Now that a growing number of species and taxa are known to ingest a diverse range of sizes and types of plastics and retain the plastics in their guts, there are increasing questions relating to the movement of plastics through food webs, and how biota may directly and indirectly ingest plastics. Here, we synthesize what is known from the published, peer-reviewed literature about plastic ingestion by animals and identify critical gaps in our knowledge. We systematically reviewed and examined the literature for studies that reported ingested plastics in marine and freshwater biota at a global scale. Our objective was to inform discussions and future studies regarding what we know about plastic ingestion and fate in food webs. We assessed what regions, ecosystems, and food webs have been studied to date and whether potential information may already be available to assess if trophic transfer of plastics may be occurring. We found 160 relevant publications through 2016. Most studies were concentrated in specific regions and in specific ecosystem types, with freshwater studies being the most limited. Moreover, most studies examined one species at a time with only a handful of regions with multiple taxa examined across multiple studies. Twenty-one percent of the regions have no published data on plastic ingestion to date. Although some studies have measured ingestion in multiple species across trophic levels, few have tested the hypothesis that plastics are transferred across trophic levels. Moreover, none have addressed questions related to biomagnification. While our review suggests that numerous papers have recorded the ingestion of plastics by biota across many trophic levels, habitats, and geographic regions, many questions regarding how or whether biota retain, bioaccumulate, biomagnify, and trophically transfer plastics still need to be addressed.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.014
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations187
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207