A Programme of Archaeological Mitigation at Land at Foxley Wood, Buxton Road, Spixworth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the trial trenching was to record any archaeological evidence revealed to evaluate the development area for potential sub-surface archaeological features. Three 1.8m wide trenches were excavated under archaeological control using a 3-ton 3600 machine fitted with a ditching bucket. Spoil, exposed surfaces and features were scanned with a metal detector (Minelab XTerra 705). All metal-detected and hand-collected finds were retained for inspection, other than those which were obviously modern. All archaeological features and deposits were recorded using Norvic Archaeology pro forma sheets. The trench location, plans and sections were recorded at appropriate scales and digital images were taken of all relevant features and deposits. The results of an archaeological evaluation by trial trenching of land of land at Foxley Wood, Buxton Road, Spixworth. At the time of works the grassed field area (c.3400m2) was proposed for the development of x4 residential houses with garages. The proposed development site is located immediately adjacent to the route of a possible section of Roman road which runs from Brampton to Thorpe St Andrew. The feature is visible on aerial photographs as a series of linear bank features, showing up as cropmarks. In addition, recent archaeological investigation immediately to the south identified post-medieval activity of uncertain nature which includes man-made ponds, a flint lined well, a trackway and field boundaries. Only three features were identified, in the form of three shallow posthole bases of post-medieval date, all within Trench 3. The function of any posts here is likely to relate to post-medieval stock management of temporary fencing on land that was historically rather wet and clay heavy for pre-industrial ploughing. Only a small number of 18th to 20th century residual finds were recovered from the subsoil and ploughsoil. The discovery of a clay natural here in the form of a dense 'brickearth', primarily at the eastern end of the development plot, is worthy of note in relation to a concentration of post-medieval activity previously identified to the southwest through excavation in 2021.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".