Plastic Pulse of the Public: A review of survey-based research on how people use plastic
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 Plastics pollute all environmental compartments because of human activities and mismanagement. Public perceptions and knowledge about plastic pollution differ among individuals and across different jurisdictions. Targeted survey-based research tools can help measure consumer awareness about the impacts of mismanaged plastics and help identify trends and solutions to reduce plastic use and plastic pollution. This review primarily focused on survey-based research from presenters at the scientific track session TS-2.15 Plastic Pulse of the Public at the 7th International Marine Debris Conference ( www.7imdc.org ) and supplemented by contemporary literature. Survey-based research helps provide new insights about public opinions related to the pervasiveness of plastic pollution. This review includes results about consumer use and perceptions of plastic pollution impacts from diverse studies from nine countries including Ghana, Kenya, Bangladesh, Pakistan, United States, Canada, Norway, Germany, and United Kingdom. Overwhelmingly, public perceptions and consumer awareness of the negative impacts of plastic pollution were extremely high, regardless of geographic location. Awareness about the environmental impacts of plastic waste and plastic pollution was highest within younger, white, female, and well-educated demographic groups. However, differences were observed in public attitudes toward willingness to pay for sustainable alternatives, end-of-life plastic uses, unintended consequences, recycling, and mismanagement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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