MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405232507 · doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrae045

“Covering For Our City Blight”: Kudzu and Public Health in Atlanta, 1979-1994

2024· article· en· W4405232507 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtlantaKudzuBlightPublic healthGeographyEnvironmental healthMedicineArchaeologyBiologyBotanyMetropolitan areaNursingAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kudzu, a perennial climbing vine and invasive species to the American South, occupied a unique space in the city of Atlanta, Georgia as a danger to public health from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. This article examines why municipal authorities understood the vine as a threat to public health. Kudzu's ability to smother surfaces allowed it to conceal murdered people and serve as a habitat for rats, snakes, and mosquitos, making it a direct threat to public safety in the eyes of public health authorities. Kudzu also grew extensively in vacant lots where city officials were trying to promote the city as progressive and prosperous. The city council voted in support of an ordinance against extensive growths of the vine, but eradication produced its own challenges: kudzu removal was expensive, and permanent eradication required large investments in time. Unhoused people also relied on the vine for shelter, which meant that eradication directly affected their safety. Examining how municipal authorities framed kudzu as a threat to public health, this article demonstrates that the vine's status as a health risk lay in how it unintentionally clashed with the promoted image of Atlanta as a business-friendly city with harmonious relationships among its citizens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the History of Medicine and Allied SciencesSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207