Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plastics, including microplastics, have generally been regarded as harmful to organisms because of their physical characteristics. There has recently been a call to understand and regard them as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. This review elaborates on the reasons that microplastics in particular should be considered as "toxic pollutants". This view is supported by research demonstrating that they contain toxic chemicals within their structure and also adsorb additional chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), from the environment. Furthermore, these chemicals can be released into tissues of animals that consume microplastics and can be responsible for the harmful effects observed on biological processes such as development, physiology, gene expression, and behavior. Leachates, weathering, and biofilm play important roles in the interactions between microplastics and biota. Global policy efforts by the United Nations Environmental Assembly via the international legally binding treaty to address global plastic pollution should consider the designation of harmful plastics (e.g., microplastics) with associated hazardous chemicals as toxic pollutants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".