Microplastics and the Impact of Plastic on Wildlife: A Literature Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microplastics (size <5 mm) have become an international attention since they have been discovered in wildlife and human gastro-intestinal tract, and might harm health. The objective of this paper is to review microplastics and analyze its possible impact on wildlife and seabird. Seabirds are upper-trophic level predators in marine ecosystems, feed on zooplankton, fish, and squid. Microplastics in seabirds have been reported in many countries, including the USA, Canada, Brazil, Japan, China, the Netherlands, and North Pacific region, involving albatrosses, petrels, storm-petrels, fulmars, cormorants, shearwaters, penguins, and many other seabird species. Microplastics were accidentally ingested because of their resemblance to the fish, plankton, or from ingestion of microplastics that already occurred inside fish food. Types of microplastics were pellet, fragment, film, fiber, foamed plastic and styrofoam. Microplastics might decrease feeding stimuli by producing a false sense of fullness, causing the bird to stop eating, resulting in malnutrition and death. Other harmful impact on birds are interrupting nutrient absorption, disrupting reproductive problems, and hindered growth and survival of chicks. Study on microplastics in Indonesia is in progress, by using Little-black cormorant to represent seabirds.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it