Determinants of COVID-19 Face Mask Litter in Coastal Urban Parking Lots: Implications for Source Modelling of Potential Microplastic Pollution
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
Despite cities being recognized as being potential sources of microplastic pollution to the wider environment, most surveys of COVID-19 plastic-based litter have been undertaken through linear transects of marine beaches. For the far fewer number of studies conducted on inland and urban locations, the site-specific focus has primarily been surveys along the length of streets. The present study is the first to specifically assess the standing stock (i.e., moment-in-time) of littered face masks for the entire surface area of urban parking lots. The density of face masks in 50 parking lots in a Canadian coastal town (0.00054 m2 ± 0.00051 m2) was found to be significantly greater than the background level of littering of town streets. Face mask density was significantly related to visitation “usage” of parking lots as gauged by the areal size of the lots and of their onsite buildings, as well as the number of vehicles present. Neither parking lot typology nor estimates of inferred export (various measures of wind exposure) and entrapment (various metrics of obstruction) of face masks had a significant influence on the extent of whole-lot littering. In consequence, modelling of the potential input of mask-derived microplastics to the marine environment from coastal communities can use the areal density of face masks found here in association with the total surface area of lots for individual municipalities as determined through GIS analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it