MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360992384 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2022-0293

Microplastics in subsurface water and zooplankton from eight lakes in British Columbia

2023· article· en· W4360992384 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Natasha Klasios, Michelle Tseng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroplasticsZooplanktonEnvironmental scienceDaphniaEnvironmental chemistryPlastic pollutionWater columnFood webPollutionOceanographyEcologyEcosystemBiologyChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microplastics are a global contaminant of concern, but we have little information on the characteristics and bioavailability of these pollutants in western Canadian lakes. Here, we quantify and characterize microplastics in subsurface water and zooplankton from eight lakes in BC, Canada. By sampling water and zooplankton, we provide insight into the fraction of microplastics entering the food web. We found 0.607 ± 0.153 microplastics per litre in subsurface water, 0.01 ± 0.011 microplastics per copepod, and 0.02 ± 0.014 microplastics per Daphnia. Microplastic pollution was similar in all lakes sampled and showed no relationship with local population density. Fibers were the dominant morphology observed in all lakes, and Raman spectroscopy identified polyester as the dominant polymer found both in lakes and within zooplankton. Zooplankton generally ingested microplastics that were shorter than their body length and that fell on the smaller end of the range of available microplastics. The prominence of polyester fibers and PET films and fragments suggests that the likely sources of microplastics to these lakes are recreational activities and atmospheric deposition.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207