Current efforts on microplastic monitoring in Arctic fish and how to proceed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this review, we investigated published data on the occurrence of microplastic in Arctic fish, and the suitability of the data and species for risk assessment and monitoring. As of 11 November 2021, we found nine studies in the peer-reviewed literature, one thesis and one report, confirming the occurrence of microplastic in fishes from multiple Arctic regions. The studies varied in methodology, detection, and quantification limitations, reported categories of size, shape, and chemical identity. All these factors influence the numbers of microplastic reported, thus limiting comparability and hindering integrative analysis. The physiological impacts of the reported microplastic contamination cannot be determined, as all studies targeted stomach/intestine contents and did not use methods with limits of detection low enough to determine particle translocation from the intestine to other organs, tissues, or body fluids within the fish. Furthermore, there is a fundamental lack of understanding the transfer and the effects of plastic additives to Arctic fishes. In addition to discussing methodological challenges and knowledge gaps, we consider ecosystem needs, commercial interests, Indigenous people’s subsistence, food safety and food sovereignty concerns, and developed a framework to harmonize and facilitate pan-Arctic microplastic monitoring.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".