MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6894189468 · doi:10.5284/1127332

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire: Bar Hill Landscape Block Archaeology Report, Specialist Reports: Finds

2024· article· en· W6894189468 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueArchaeology Data Service · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEarth and Planetary Sciences
ThématiqueArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésExcavationBlock (permutation group theory)Section (typography)Square (algebra)GeoarchaeologyQuarter (Canadian coin)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Fieldwork: The total excavated area in the Bar Hill Landscape Block covered 23.35ha (excluding TEA 35), with the geophysical surveys and trenching evaluations used to define the archaeological mitigation areas. All archaeological fieldwork within this landscape block took place between September 2016 and November 2017. The route of the proposed local access road within TEA 37 was designated as a strip map and sample excavation (SMS), with a central section measuring 200m x 90m designated as a targeted excavation area (TEA). However, in consultation with the Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology Officer, a decision was taken to strip a 10m wide haul road and only strip the full width in areas where archaeological remains were discovered, except for the 10m closest to the A14 with the aim of locating potential evidence of the Via Devana, the Roman road which connected the 'small towns' at Godmanchester (Durovigutum) and Cambridge (Duroliponte). As a result, wider areas were investigated in the central and eastern sections of TEA 37 where several Roman ditches were identified, although none of these were related to any potential roadside ditch. As no evidence was found during evaluations on the south side of the A14 carriageway, the line of the Via Devana is, therefore, believed to lie beneath the modern road. The results of the geophysical survey and subsequent trial trenching resulted in the designations of TEAs 34, 41 and 46. The designation of TEA 38 was due to the presence of a known Iron Age and Roman settlement, identified from aerial photograph transcription work conducted in the 1980s (CHER pref ref 08836) and confirmed by remains identified during the evaluation. Each of the TEAs were subject to metal detecting following stripping. All works were undertaken in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) (Atkins CH2M 2016). Post-Excavation: The preliminary grouping and stratigraphic sequencing of features outlined in the Post-excavation Assessment (PXA) reports for the Bar Hill Landscape Block (Hewitt 2018a, Hewitt 2018b, Burke 2018a, 2018b, Pennell 2018, MHI 2019) are superseded here. The stratigraphic information from these is supplemented by the pottery and radiocarbon dates to provide a more detailed understanding of the chronology and sequence of sites across the Landscape Block. Following conventions set out in the post-excavation methodology (MHI 2020), features have been grouped and assigned to periods using a set of standardised terms and numeration. Chronological periods referred to in this report are based on the established period divisions used in Cambridgeshire and beyond and in consultation with pottery specialists. Many features have also been assigned to a 'land use' and/or settlement to facilitate detailed analysis and comparison of archaeological sites across the Landscape Blocks. Iron Age and Roman features have been, where possible, assigned to phases within their settlements to provide a detailed understanding of sequence and development. This broad phasing should be considered as an aid to description rather than a definitive chronological guide. Where phases are denoted, these take the form of a letter following the settlement number. As part of the post-excavation phase of work volumetric analysis was undertaken across Bar Hill. Volumetric analysis provides estimates of the relative densities of artefacts and ecofacts within excavated features across the sites. Unlike traditional two-dimensional approaches to finds distributions, density-based approaches have the potential to aid in identifying patterns of waste disposal and focal points of activity in the analysis stage.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,453
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,244
Écart entre enseignants0,222 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArchaeology Data ServiceMême sujetArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesTravaux en français237 207