MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125907974 · doi:10.1002/fee.2294

The “plastic cycle”: a watershed‐scale model of plastic pools and fluxes

2021· review· en· W3125907974 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy J. Hoellein, Chelsea M. Rochman

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPlastic pollutionWatershedEnvironmental sciencePlastic wasteEcosystemContainment (computer programming)LitterMarine ecosystemFreshwater ecosystemPollutionEnvironmental resource managementEcologyWaste managementEngineeringComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on plastics in global ecosystems is rapidly evolving. Oceans have been the primary focus of studies to date, whereas rivers are generally considered little more than conduits of plastics to marine ecosystems. Within a watershed, however, plastics of all sizes are retained, transformed, and even extracted via freshwater use or litter cleanup. As such, plastic litter in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems is an important but underappreciated component of global plastic pollution. To gain a holistic perspective, we developed a conceptual model that synthesizes all sources, fluxes, and fates for plastics in a watershed, including containment (ie disposed in landfill), non‐containment (ie persists as environmental pollution), mineralization, export to oceans, atmospheric interactions, and freshwater extraction. We used this model of the “plastic cycle” to illustrate which components have received the most scientific attention and to reveal overlooked pathways. Our main objective is for this framework to inform future research, offer a new perspective to adapt management across diverse waste governance scenarios, and improve global models of plastic litter.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations106
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Ecology and the EnvironmentSame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207