A Perspective on Plastics and Microplastics Contamination in Garden Soil in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plastic contamination is commonly reported in urban and rural soils, as well as in fresh and ocean waters. Canada’s government has attempted to limit the contamination of single-use plastic by banning the manufacturing and selling of specific types of plastic. In British Columbia, current regulations governing commercial composting state that when compost has less than 1% of its dry weight representing foreign materials (including plastic), it can be sold and used in soils. However, due to the low density of plastic and its potential to break down into microparticles, this amount may be enough to become toxic when used in agricultural soils. This paper studies contamination of plastic in garden soils and summarizes how this can affect the environment with a preliminary examination of a garden soil sample. The examination showed that the garden soil sample contained mainly low-density polyethylene, polyethylene and polypropylene plastics (identified through ATR-FTIR) in oxidized and unoxidized forms that can come from commercial composting and hypothesizes that this plastic could break down into microplastic particles. In order to limit the amount of plastic contamination in agricultural soils, it is necessary to modify current compost regulations in order to treat plastic differently than other foreign materials (glass, metal, wood).
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".