Microplastics in Arctic invertebrates: status on occurrence and recommendations for future monitoring
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
Few studies have been published on the occurrence and distribution of microplastics (MPs) in invertebrates from the Arctic. We still need to develop harmonized methods to enable good comparison between studies taking into account recovery rates, size ranges, shapes, and polymer types. Here, we review studies on MPs in invertebrates from the Arctic and present suggestions on sampling protocols and potential indicator species. Since information on MPs in Arctic invertebrates is vastly lacking, we recommend to at least include suspension feeding bivalves like mussels in monitoring programmes to function as indicator species in the Arctic. Mussels have also been suggested as indicator species for MP monitoring in coastal regions further south. Although we recognize the challenge with particle selection and egestion in mussels as well as the relatively low concentrations of MPs in Arctic waters, uptake levels seem to represent recent exposures. More research is needed to understand these selection processes and how they affect the bioaccumulation processes. Future research should include studies on whether different functional groups of invertebrates have different exposures to MPs, e.g., if there are differences between sessile versus motile species or different feeding strategies. More knowledge on monitoring strategies for pelagic and benthic species is needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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