Dominant Modes of Agricultural Production Helped Structure Initial COVID-19 Spread in the U.S. Midwest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spread of COVID-19 is geographically uneven in agricultural regions. Explanations proposed include differences in occupational risks, access to healthcare, racial inequalities, and approaches to public health. Here, we additionally explore the impacts of coexisting modes of agricultural production across counties from twelve midwestern U.S. states. In modeling COVID-19 spread before vaccine authorization, we employed and extended spatial statistical methods that make different assumptions about the natures and scales of underlying sociospatial processes. In the process, we also develop a novel approach to visualizing the results of geographically weighted regressions that allows us to identify distinctive regional regimes of epidemiological processes. Our approaches allowed for models using abstract spatial weights (e.g., inverse-squared distances) to be meaningfully improved by also integrating process-specific relations (e.g., the geographical relations of the food system or of commuting). We thus contribute in several ways to methods in health geography and epidemiology for identifying contextually sensitive public engagements in socio-eco-epidemiological issues. Our results further show that agricultural modes of production are associated with the spread of COVID-19, with counties more engaged in modes of regenerative agricultural production having lower COVID-19 rates than those dominated by modes of conventional agricultural production, even when accounting for other factors.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".