MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7082154319 · doi:10.5284/1136236

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment of Land at Mary Street, Sheffield, South Yorkshire

2005· article· en· W7082154319 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueArchaeology Data Service · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésExtant taxonExcavationQuarter (Canadian coin)Historic siteDocumentary evidenceChannel (broadcasting)Archaeological evidenceFactory (object-oriented programming)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In October 2005, ARCUS were commissioned by Escafeld Design on behalf of Andrew Fantom, to undertake a desk-based assessment on property at Mary Street, Sheffield, South Yorkshire (SK 3540 8660). The assessment included a site visit and buildings assessment, along with documentary and cartographic research. Mary Street is located within Sheffields Cultural Industries Quarter and the sites extant structures are deemed by Sheffield City Council to be Significant Buildings that contribute to Area Character. There is no archaeological or historical evidence for the proposal area prior to the sixteenth century. Documentary evidence from 1581 indicates that the site was part of an area called the Pastures. The earliest known development within the proposal area was the goit or artificial channel that crossed the site, carrying water from the Porter Brook to the dam of Cinderhill Wheel, a cutlers workshop first recorded in 1588. The goit remained an open channel until at least 1850 and may have been infilled only when the Cinderhill site was demolished in 1866. Prior to its canalisation and re-alignment during the late eighteenth century, the Porter Brook crossed the north-west part of the proposal area. The sites present-day western boundary was formed by the brooks canalisation during this period. Cartographic evidence indicates that the site was undeveloped land in 1841 but contained several allotments and associated structures by 1850. Mary Street had been developed by 1879 and the site was occupied by the Cyprus Works file manufactory and Hammer Works tool factory in 1890. During the early twentieth century, the proposal areas eastern plot was the site of the Guion Works tool factory, which was extended subsequently and became the Union Works, a machine knife factory. This complex was demolished during the final quarter of the twentieth century. The sites western plot had acquired the name Hawk Works by 1905 and operated as a cutlery and machine knife factory throughout the twentieth century. Several phases of structural redevelopment have taken place during the latter half of that period, with the demolition of nineteenth-century industrial features such as the factory chimney and the remodelling of aspects of the building fabric. The extant buildings, while modified and restructured throughout the twentieth century, do retain a number of features relating to the nineteenth-century complex. Depending on the extent of landscaping works relating to the creation of Mary Street and subsurface disturbance associated with the construction of the nineteenth- century buildings, there could be a high potential for the survival of subsurface archaeological remains associated with the Cinderhill goit. The extent to which the demolition of the Union Works removed associated subsurface features is unclear and the archaeological potential for the survival of remains relating to the nineteenth- century tool manufactory is thus deemed to be moderate to good. Further archaeological work would be required to determine the nature and extent of any such deposits.

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 candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,753
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,877

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 technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0040,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,279
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · 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; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
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
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArchaeology Data ServiceMême sujetGeochemistry and Geologic MappingTravaux en français237 207