MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phthalate contamination in marine mammals off the Norwegian coast

2023· article· en· W4390291056 on OpenAlexaff
Clare Andvik, Pierre Bories, Mikael Harju, Katrine Borgå, Eve Jourdain, Richard Karoliussen, Audun H. Rikardsen, Heli Routti, Pierre Blévin

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Pollution Bulletin · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsBlubberPhocaSperm whalePorpoisePhocoenaPhthalateMinke whaleBalaenopteraWhaleMicroplasticsFisheryMarine mammalHarbor sealBiologyZoologyHarbourEcologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phthalates are used in plastics, found throughout the marine environment and have the potential to cause adverse health effects. In the present study, we quantified blubber concentrations of 11 phthalates in 16 samples from stranded and/or free-living marine mammals from the Norwegian coast: the killer whale (Orcinus orca), sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas), white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris), harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and harbour seal (Phoca vitulina). Five compounds were detected across all samples: benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP; in 50 % of samples), bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP; 33 %), diisononyl phthalate (DiNP; 33 %), diisobutyl phthalate (DiBP; 19 %), and dioctyl phthalate (DOP; 13 %). Overall, the most contaminated individual was the white-beaked dolphin, whilst the lowest concentrations were measured in the killer whale, sperm whale and long-finned pilot whale. We found no phthalates in the neonate killer whale. The present study is important for future monitoring and management of these toxic compounds.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Pollution BulletinSame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207