MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404242611 · doi:10.11141/ia.67.20

Different Stories for Different People - Engagement with the Archaeology of HS2 Area North

2024· article· en· W4404242611 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Nicholls, Natasha Bramall

Bibliographic record

VenueInternet Archaeology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsWSP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchaeologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The UK high-speed railway High Speed Two (HS2) will link London and the Midlands following the route of the 19th-century London and Birmingham Railway. After years of work, including the largest programme of historic environment investigation in the UK across a swathe of the landscape over a number of years, the construction stage is now in progress. The lead document for the delivery of the historic environment works is HS2's generic Written Scheme of Investigation, the Historic Environment Research and Delivery Strategy (HERDS). One of the central principles of HERDS is to derive public benefit from the historic environment works, by meeting community engagement objectives and building a legacy of knowledge and skills. This article was delivered as a paper at the European Association of Archaeologists' (EAA) conference in 2023, themed 'Weaving narratives', in an HS2 session entitled 'Different stories for different people'. It discusses some of the principles of audience and narrative development that can be transferred to other archaeological projects from the discoveries in the Midlands (HS2 Area North). Three steps are highlighted. Firstly, engage with and listen to stakeholders and community representatives early in the project lifespan, using professional expertise. Secondly, assimilate key themes and local issues, create partnerships, and identify heritage champions to support the design of activities. Thirdly, work together to deliver a range of events and activities tailored to a variety of audiences using bespoke platforms and styles. Adopting this approach, and having clearer mechanisms for measuring and evaluating the benefit of the outcomes, demonstrates worth and benefits the sector. For project legacy, the goal is to use the stories to transfer skills, information, good practice and ownership.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.020
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternet ArchaeologySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207