MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6969229603 · doi:10.5284/1135359

Deepham's Sewage Works, Edmonton, Greater London Updated Geoarchaeological Deposit Model

2010· article· en· W6969229603 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueArchaeology Data Service · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEarth and Planetary Sciences
ThématiqueGeological Modeling and Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBoreholeExcavationGeoarchaeologyContext (archaeology)DrillingScale (ratio)Geotechnical investigation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Watching Brief: A continuous watching brief was maintained during ground works which included the monitoring of surface stripping, cut and fill operations, and deeper trenching. A daily record of the nature, extent and depth of groundworks was maintained throughout the duration of the project. Digital and black-and-white negative photograph records were taken of all sections, excavations and archaeological features. Excavation of any archaeological features was undertaken to fulfil the basic objective of retrieval of archaeological data affected by the works. All features and deposits were issued with unique context numbers, and context recording as in accordance with the established OA Field Manual (Wilkinson 1992). All contexts and small finds were allocated unique numbers. Bulk finds were collected by context. Site plans were drawn at an appropriate scale (normally 1:50 or 1:100) with larger scale plans of features as necessary. Section drawings of features and trenches were drawn at a scale of 1:20. Borehole Survey: Eight geotechnical boreholes were undertaken on behalf of Thames Water within the Deepham's Sewage Works. Three of the boreholes (BHMW1, BHMW2, and BHMW8) were identified as requiring specialist geoarchaeological monitoring due to the fact they were located on either the floodplain or its margins. The five remaining boreholes were all located on the gravel terrace (BHMW3-BHMW7) which initially produced very similar sequences. Consequently only two of these boreholes were monitored (BHMW3 and BHMW7). The borehole locations are illustrated in Figure 2. The drilling was undertaken by Structural Soils Ltd and samples were retrieved as disturbed stratified bulk samples using a shell and auger cable percussion rig. At each sampling location an OA geoarchaeologist monitored the drilling and logged the samples on-site. The sediment sequence in each borehole was recorded on a summary proforma sheet which included information on sample numbers and location with reference to Ordnance Datum and the National Grid. The sediments were logged according to Jones et al 1999 The Description and Analysis of Quaternary Stratigraphic Field Sections, Technical Guide No 7, Quaternary Research Association 1999, and included information about depth, texture, composition, colour, clast orientation, structure (bedding, ped characteristics etc) and contacts between deposits. Note was also made of any visible ecofactual, or artefactual inclusions e.g. pottery, daub or charcoal fragments. Samples for further description and/or palaeoenvironmental remains were retrieved opportunistically. Watching Brief: In May 2010 Oxford Archaeology South (OAS) were commissioned by Thames Water Utilities Ltd, to maintain an archaeological watching brief during the upgrade of the sewage treatment facility at Deepham's Sewage Works, Edmonton, Greater London. The purpose of the field investigation was to mitigate the impacts of the development. This work forms part of a wider archaeological investigation strategy within the area of the site, aimed at assessing the archaeological preservation and potential of the sewage works. Previous investigations have included floodplain modelling and desk-based assessment, which indicated that the area has a high archaeological potential. However, subsequent targeted field evaluations to the south of the site have failed to identify any signs of archaeology, and have revealed significant ground disturbance. The most recent phases of work in the sewage works have identified preserved floodplain deposits, including peat and alluvial deposits sealed under thick madeground deposits. An updated deposit model has also indicated areas of preserved floodplain deposits to the east and south, with signs of modern truncation on the gravel terrace to the west, where the current site is located.

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)0,001
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: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,757
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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 Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,236
Écart entre enseignants0,205 · 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
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArchaeology Data ServiceMême sujetGeological Modeling and AnalysisTravaux en français237 207