Microplastic and other anthropogenic microparticles in Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) and their coastal habitat: A first-look at a central Canadian Arctic commercial fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the recent monitoring guidelines released by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program's Litter and Microplastic Expert Group, Arctic salmonids were recommended as an important species for monitoring plastics in Arctic ecosystems, with an emphasis on aligning microplastic sampling and analysis methods in Arctic fishes. This recommendation was based on the minimal documentation of microplastics in Northern fishes, especially Arctic salmonids. In response, we worked collaboratively with local partners to quantify and characterize microplastics in Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus, and their habitats in a commercial fishery near Iqaluktuuttiaq (Cambridge Bay), Nunavut. We sampled Arctic char, surface water, and benthic sediments within their summer foraging habitat at Palik (Byron Bay). We found microplastics in 95 % of char with an average of 26 (SD ± 19) particles per individual. On average, surface water samples had 23 (SD ± 12 particles/L and benthic sediment <1 particles/gww. This is the first documentation of plastic pollution in Arctic char and their critical habitats. Future work should evaluate seasonal, temporal and spatial trends for long-term monitoring of microplastics in Arctic fishes and their habitats.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".